Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on August 19, 2005, 03:24:33 PM
-
Hi All,
Recently the U.S. Office of Special Counsel issued an initial finding that Smithsonian Scientist Richard Sternberg had been the victim of workplace retaliation and had been essentially "run out" of the institution after Senior Scientists created an unbearably hostile workplace environment. Sternberg's crime? Agreeing to publish a research paper by Stephen Meyer entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" which dared to question whether Darwinian evolution could explain what scientists refer to as the Cambrian explosion.
As even militant atheists like the late Stephen J. Gould have pointed out, as the evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution has continued to crumble, its proponents have become increasingly fanatical in its defense, essentially arguing that any theory that might more adequately explain the current data is in fact simply sophisticated creationism and quasi religious mumbo-jumbo. Gould himself coined the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism" to describe this movement to forcibly supress even the discussion of competing theories, and which has lead to the smearing of even outspokenly non-religious scientists, including at least one non-practicing Jewish biologist, with the label "bible thumper" for daring to assert that the evidence for ID (intelligent design) is scientifically compelling.
In any event here are two articles on the recent events:
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html)
NROnline (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
the evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution has continued to crumble,
Hmmm... I detect some theological wishful thinking...
Sources?
-
If the above were a Wikipedia article, I'd have to call in some serious NPOV violations.
Sandman nailed it.
-
Hi Sandman,
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I detect some theological wishful thinking...
Sources?
The two articles actually contain some links to some of the recent discussion in the scientific community.
But actually there are two major camps in the scientific community who have been pointing out the inability of Darwinism to explain the current evidence available.
The first is the ID or Intelligent Design community, who are not to be confused with biblical creationists like myself. They simply believe that the scientific data including the current DNA and fossil evidence is far better explained by intelligent design. Issues like the fact that mutation does not produce biological improvements and irreducibly complex organisms would tend to point in this direction.
Then there are those, like the aformentioned Gould, who believe that the failures to find the transitional life forms that Darwinian evolution requires, or evidence supporting gradual macro-evolution, or the increasing evidence that the Darwinian tree of life went from more life forms to less, not the other way round, requires the development of new scientific paradigms.
In 2001 about 100 of these scientists from both camps, fed up with being forced to accept a paradigm they no longer felt explained the evidence signed a "Dissent From Darwin" (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf). Since that time even more have signed on, some because they are simply sick of working in an environment where questioning the status quo has become impossible.
Here's an article on the subject:
400 scientists skeptical of Darwin
Theory 'great white elephant of contemporary thought'
Posted: July 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, or CSC. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."
The Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001.
The think tank challenged statements made in the PBS "Evolution" series, which claimed that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.
"The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life," said John G. West, associate director of the CSC. "We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we've seen this past year."
The institute says that in the past three months, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the statement, which includes more than 70 biologists.
Two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University, Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, are recent signers.
Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Beloussov is a professor of embryology. Both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."
West says the talk in media about "science vs. religion" is misleading.
"This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds," he said.
Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe;Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information;and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum.
The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and the University of Washington.
- SEAGOON
-
Gentlemen,
Did you read the Washington Post article? Give it a read. The issue isn't over whether or not you believe in Evolution, Biblical Creation, Intelligent Design, or that Aliens created huge obelisks that taught men how to use tools.
The issue is over whether all discussion of the subject has to be totally forbidden, and whether anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials must be silenced using disinformation and lies. At one point for instance, Sternberg's (who isn't a creationist) boss had to circulate his C.V. in order to combat email lies that he wasnt' a scientist. The situation is such that any dissent from the current paradigm has become scientific heresy punishable by excommunication from the community.
Give at least the WP article a try, the Post is hardly a mouthpiece for creationism.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The first is the ID or Intelligent Design community, who are not to be confused with biblical creationists like myself. They simply believe that the scientific data including the current DNA and fossil evidence is far better explained by intelligent design.
- SEAGOON
With respect, that is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong in almost every respect.
It is the fervent wish of creationists that the public will believe that 'Intelligent Design' is unrelated to religion so that creationism can get a foothold in the classroom as being as relevant as evolution.
ID'ers are essentially saying: "Ok ok, unrelated to god... let's assume that SOMETHING created all life. We won't call it god, we'll call it.. hmm... 'Deius'. Yes, that's it. So, not God, but 'Deius' created the universe and life."
Science needs evidence. Evolution has evidence. Creationism (aka 'Intelligent Design' without the fancy suit) can be described as "Well goodness, doesn't it SEEM like things are too ordered?"
As long as creation myths lack physical evidence, they belong in the theology part of school, not in science.
Remember, the human brain finds patterns. That's how babies recognize faces. It also means that we see people and objects when we look at clouds.
-
On the other hand...
Intelligent Design: Bad Science, Bad for Religion (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12184.html?rnd=51)
Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)
ID or creationism requires faith... and that's my problem with it.
-
Interesting read.
I am not a creationist.
My observation is, isn’t part of being a good scientist keeping an open mind? Some of the people quoted sound like they don’t have very open minds.
Sounds like Darwinism is almost a religion to them.
I don’t see why they had to get the attack machine going, if there is nothing to this theory then counter it with science instead of slander.
-
Now I'm just confused..................... ....
I understand chilling debate in politics or religion. I thought the root of the scientific process was to pose questions and work with the results to see where they lead. There are no right or wrong answers. There are just "answers" to help light the way---->>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
You're right, and that is the way to counter it.
It's unfortunate, however, that the scientists will never be able to use science rationally to counter religious arguments, because of one big weapon the religious types have:
Faith.
Faith means that 'no matter how outlandish something is... no matter how absolutely incorrect, no matter HOW much evidence is presented... if I maintain my faith, I will be rewarded.'
Arguing with people who have religious convictions about creationism is like trying to teach a cat to fetch a stick. It ain't gonna work, and it's just going to piss off the cat.
-
I'm sorry but don't tell my 3 year old Norwegin Forest cat that. He dosen't know he's not supposed to fetch...we discovered that by accident. I threw a paper roll at him while I was on the can to get him to leave me alone. It flew out the room and down the hall. He ran after it and brought it back to me. I threw it again to test for the anomoli factor. He is a Norwegin Forest Cat Retreiver......:)
Im confused then by your assersion...what is faith? Leave religion out of the answer....that would be too easy for imagry.
-
Hi Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
With respect, that is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong in almost every respect.
It is the fervent wish of creationists that the public will believe that 'Intelligent Design' is unrelated to religion so that creationism can get a foothold in the classroom as being as relevant as evolution.
Do you seriously believe that every scientist who doubts Darwinian evolution does so because he wants to get "Religion in the Classroom?" How then do you explain the number of non-religious (even atheistic) scientists who signed on to the Dissent? The article I posted even deals with this:
"Two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University, Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, are recent signers.
Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Beloussov is a professor of embryology. Both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."
West says the talk in media about "science vs. religion" is misleading.
"This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds," he said.
On a serious note related to the real issue of whether dissent is possible, I've been reading material on this subject for over ten years now, including a reread of Darwin's Origin of the Species, Gould's The Panda's Thumb, Pinker's How the Mind Works, Sagan's Cosmic Connection, Dembski's "Intelligent Design" and a host of articles in scientific journals on both sides. But even here, when one attempts to discuss it, one is immediately told it is all a theological plot to overthrow humanism, and while I am forced to examine the evidence for Darwinism, apparently no research is required into books refuting Darwinism in order to condemn them. Have you read any books on Intelligent design Chairboy? I ask this because you assert that it is all a matter of faith and patterns, however men like Meyer who wrote the original article are showing how the EVIDENCE now seems to contradict Darwinian evolution and point in other directions. Give his article a read and then point out to me how it is all "Faith" and "Pattern" rather than evidence:
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage)
As it happens I don't support or endorse ID being a biblical Creationist myself, but I'm willing to examine the data.
What is so threatening about the idea that an old theory regarding our origins (Darwinian evolution) might be no longer be scientifically supportable and a new paradigm needs to be adopted anyway?
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're right, and that is the way to counter it.
It's unfortunate, however, that the scientists will never be able to use science rationally to counter religious arguments, because of one big weapon the religious types have:
Faith.
Faith means that 'no matter how outlandish something is... no matter how absolutely incorrect, no matter HOW much evidence is presented... if I maintain my faith, I will be rewarded.'
Arguing with people who have religious convictions about creationism is like trying to teach a cat to fetch a stick. It ain't gonna work, and it's just going to piss off the cat.
This may surprise you, and I hope you will forgive me if I respectfully point this out, but you and Sandman are the ones who brought up the issue of faith. At no point in the WP article or the original text I posted was the issue of "Faith" raised. In fact Sternberg, the man who was run out of the Smithsonian, is not "a man of faith" in fact in talking about his motivations for publishing the article that has caused his life and career to disintegrate, he simply pointed out:
"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."
I want to suggest, and that again respectfully, that the "faith" argument is in fact a straw-man. Let me ask you, in your own debates with me, when have I retreated to naked fideism or defended a point saying simply "faith, faith! You HAVE to believe this contrary to all evidence!" Have I not attempted to present reasons for what I believe to be true?
In this argument in particular, it seems that the Darwinian side simply assumes that every contrary argument is part of a great conspiracy of fideistic ignorance attempting to overthrow reason. What I would suggest is that Darwinianism itself has become a blind and faith of its own which zealously safeguards its hegemony and tolerates no dissent. All evidence against it is automatically false, and anyone who dissents isn't a real scientist. Read the article, why would a rock solid theory founded on indisputable fact require so much coordinated intimidation, harrassment, and outright slander in order to suppress any dissent? As others have pointed out, the whole thing smacks of what Galileo endured.
- SEGOON
-
Hi all. Good debate. One that I do not dare tread in my workplace.
1st, to Chairboy and Sandman...I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I don't go to church, I don't pray to God or god however I should be writing that. I laughed at my "religious nut" friends and throughout my college time in the deep South. One of my chemistry teachers even gave a lecture that touched on Itelligent Design. I buried my head in my arms and bit my tongue to stop myself from laughing.
However, my current work has me questioning my previous smug convictions. I'd take the time to explain why, but I can't post a trillion pictures/diagrams in here.
Suffice to say, I am not convinced that Darwinian evolution can explain the creation of DNA, the protein machinery to translate it into RNA and then into proteins.
In brief:
The mantra is: DNA-->RNA-->protein. Yet the process itself requires proteins to carry out the translation. It's like having machines build machines, but how did the first machines get built?
I don't care if you say God did it, aliens, space dust, Allah or whoever...just count me as one scientist who doesn't believe Darwin's theory of evolution in whole.
-
If Darwinian Evolution is not provable, what is wrong with mentioning Darwin himself had no way of explaining the origin of life, and that his co-writer Russell admitted a creator must have started life?
What doesn't make sense to me is, if Darwin's co-author and scientific colleague alluded to a creator, why is this point not mentioned in any discussion of Darwinian Evolution?
Les
-
I agree with SEAGOON here. YOu guys are refusing to look at something becuase it MIGHT have origins of relignion. I read about a physicist who was a devout athiest studying quantom physics and the big bang and all that. One day he started crunching the numbers of some of his data and the answers he was getting shook his atheism to it's core. It was just not probably that the universe or life was created mathmatically....but it was.
I don't know much about it and would like to know more if anyone has any information to post but none of you have addressed the "missing links" issue. That there are several genetic links in the chain that are missing. Again I don't know what those are but just like SEAGOON i'm willing to look.
XrightyX touched on it while I was writing....I....would still like to know more though.
-
Seagoon,
I to wish that the undefinable human condition called "Faith" would be removed from these discussions. To be honest from both sides, the Humanists tirades against it are fueled by exactly the same power of "Faith" as the "Faith" that powers your joy in God the Father.
Both parties beleive in their position by "Faith". Raw and pure scientific "Facts" have never gotten in the way of how a man who has made up his mind will beleive in something.
It takes faith in your knowledge and experience of how an airplane's wing generates lift to ride in one each time. It takes the same faith in your beleif that the universe is guided by an unseen hand.
Is it wrong to ask the question - I have noticed that the properties of flight that make it possible, the existance of air molecules that act in a predictable fasion and gravity that also acts in a predictable manner, and materials when placed together in a predictable combination result in flight almost every time within the atmosphere of this planet. What created all of this predictablility in such a manner that we seem to naturally detect the patterns of this issue and adapt ourselves to it so easily?
Anyones answer then becomes based on Faith in ones beleif in what one has decided to beleive.
-
teh funnay. (http://www.venganza.org/)
-
There'sa difference between an athiest and an agnostic.
Ones waiting for proof, the other has made up his mind. Most often agnostics are just lumped into the atheist catagory by theists.
I'm paitently awaiting more info.. and have been following the upheaval in the scientific community for some time. As with all scientific bodys attempting to sit in judgement back thru history..
..the more things change, the more they stay the same.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
There'sa difference between an athiest and an agnostic.
;)
Yeap... the latter fears to commit. ;)
-
More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics...
400? My god! That's practically the entire scientific community.
When a theory is shown to be no longer the best understanding of a phenomenon, it is superceded. It's a slow process, and generally doesn't involve burning people at the stake or converting them by the sword or throwing them into bodies of water to see if they float.
Organised religion is laughable in it's approach to scientific discovery. Ironically, it evolves its 'interpretation' of dogma to suit scientific theory. Apparently, the Earth being 6000 years old was a metaphor or some such tripe.
-
Seagoon,
What makes these atheists "militant"?
I thought militants were fanatics that used violence to try to get their way.
Usually the status quo of any group tends to view out of the box thinking by others with some resistance when that thinking goes against established, common ideals.
Kind of the human nature in us.
How about using "stubborn" instead of "militant" in your description? Seems a bit more accurate.
Originally posted by Seagoon
snip-
As even militant atheists like the late Stephen J. Gould have pointed out, -snip
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yeap... the latter fears to commit. ;)
Has nuthin to do with fear on my part, Sandy. But the comment does imply some intersting pre-dispositions on your part.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yeap... the latter fears to commit. ;)
Actually an agnostic is a logical person one who realizes that logic cannot be used to prove the non existance of a diety. The agnostic also knows that logic cannot be used for proving religious dogma; religion is based upon faith. One must take an illogical step to believe in God, that step is called a 'Leap of Faith'.
If one has based religious faith or athieistic beliefs on logic, one's logic is flawed.
-
Have I lost the understanding of something here? Scientific method only reveils the mechanics of how the physical universe works. It's been around some what less in the time span of human history than religion.
I understand in purely human terms there is great power over the masses and sometimes money to be made by fronting science as a what What is science when the body begins repeating the history of the catholic church against it's membership? Schisoms based on differences of beleif in the fundimental dogmas and creeds of origion????????????
Science has yet to prove or disprove the existance of God. Science has so far scratched a gnats arse of the universe concerning knowing anything. At this point it is faith that keeps scientists beleiving they will discover the secret of life and dispell the myth of God. It is the same Faith that the beleivers of God have that keeps them beleiving.
All I'm seeing here is the Church of God and the Church of the Quantum Mysteries competeing for beleivers.
-
Originally posted by bustr
... At this point it is faith that keeps scientists beleiving they will discover the secret of life and dispell the myth of God.
Einstein's motivation was "to read the mind of God"
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
You make a good point, Holden. And I believe there's more than one quote of his floating around out there about his belief that there must be a God.
But Science class....
I remember saying about Math class (as I'm sure everyone did....) "This is a bunch of bull! Who cares about this stuff and AS IF there'll ever come a time when I'll need to know how to do it!"
The answer was invariably: "It's not important that you'll never need to know how to do this again, because Math isn't so much about the answers to the questions, but the ability to work through the questions. It's a process. It's about problem solving."
Which brings us back to Science class (which I hated too, btw...)
It never even occured to me that it was teaching some philosophy about how the world evolved. At least I never took it like that. It was about the scientific method, and proof. Using observable laws of nature to.... damn I dunno, cut frogs up. Or something.
In essence, I guess, it was about taking what we know to be true (like gravity and fossils etc.) and by looking backwards and forwards, making assumptions based on those things. Fair enough, aint it? Like Math, it's a method... or system... of working through unknowns. Assumptions are made, corrected, updated and.... using this scientific method, and based on an ever expanding knowledge base - continually evolving.
Intelligent Design aint nothing like that. It's a fully formed idea. It has nothing to do with problem solving. Through it, you wouldn't be teaching kids how to observe, research, and learn... you would simply be telling them: "This is how it is."
Ladies and gentlemen - that aint a school. That's a church.
It's ridiculous.
Like Einstein, there may very well be a time when the scientific community reaches a consensus that there must be a god.
But let them get there in the way that they know how. Simply saying "It is so" just doesn't cut it - and kids shouldn't be spoon fed in this way.
Oh, how satisfying it would be if in, say, 500 hundred years, Scientists finally stumbled upon the verifyable and undeniable proof of God's existence. Imagine it.
But by mandating Intelligent Design, it's as if you'd want to render mankind incapable of that.
-
define Intelligent Design, use examples we can see.
define Darwinism, use examples we can see.
compare. contrast
Use reason. Not emotion.
Not faith.
REASON.[/B]
-
The scientific method is a process, not a belief.
That faster Cheetas are chosen to survive thru natural selection is a scientific fact. Slower ones go hungry and die.
That species change thru breeding is a scientific fact. Look at your dog.
It seems an easy logical step with the above truths that natural selection can change species.
Many scientists look at the many overlapping 'Goldilocks zones' in which we exist, ie the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun for liquid water to exist, the value of Epsilon, or the relative amount of Hydrogen that converts to Helium via Big Band Fusion. (0.007) If the number was higher or lower by just the smallest amount, the nuclear foprce would be all screwed up and the universe would not form into anything from which life could arise.
They look at this and say there must be a Grand Designer because they do not like the equally logically based anthropormorphic principle, which says if it were not the way it is, we would not be here to witness.
Oh and Nash, how could you hate math and science class and still be a geek?
-
I was a band stoner geek. :)
-
I've heard that the crux is the number and comparative overlaps of the 'goldilocks zones' is pushing well beyond the credible level of coincidence.
Is this the case?
If so, what's the basis of criteria for a credible number of 'coincidences'?
-
Emotion displaces reason.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Many scientists look at the many overlapping 'Goldilocks zones' in which we exist, ie the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun....
...They look at this and say there must be a Grand Designer because they do not like the equally logically based anthropormorphic principle, which says if it were not the way it is, we would not be here to witness.
Okay, I enter into this fully knowing that I'm about to get pummelled and buried under scientific tomfoolery, hyjinks, and gooblyguck that I can't even come close to understanding, much less matching... but...
You seem to be saying that the prevelant discourse in the scientific community is that they now believe in God because they can't reconsile themselves to the notion that this was all just random chance.
Have their views really swung so far in that direction - enough to even hint that it's a predominant sentiment?
-
Oops, nevermind. You said "many".
I took it as "prevelant."
Not sure why.
-
Not aiming this at either side, but I thought I would put in my 2 bits worth and let both sides beat on me.
First I think that religion is simple a form of mind control, not at all unlike Fascism, you will believe or you will face x penalty.
This does not mean that I do not have a deep and abiding faith in God, I just do not buy into any of the religious dogma.
I believe that a "day" (for the 7 day creation WJC reference) to God is a really, really long time and evolution is his method of creating all life on earth ... and I do not think he is finished yet ... or to put it more simple we are living in the 7th day ... waiting for midnight.
Let the beating begin.
-
and I can postulate that God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology.
but that's not what we're discussing. we're discussing what it is that's got the higher-highers in the scientific community running around with their hands in the air, wailing and gnashing their teeth while they shred documents and cast each other into the abyss..
figuratively speaking, of course.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You seem to be saying that the prevelant discourse in the scientific community is that they now believe in God because they can't reconsile themselves to the notion that this was all just random chance.
Have their views really swung so far in that direction - enough to even hint that it's a predominant sentiment?
Yes Nash. It's almost just like that. If you sit there and say y has to happen before z and x has to happen before y and the chances of a through c happening is 1million to the trillianth power with that number increasing the closer you get to Y. People that think in those terms say that it's just not a probabability. It's mathmatically unlikely all those sequence of events happening so perfect and precisely when the odds of them happening at all are astronomical.
At least that's how I've seen it.
-
Well Gunslinger - yer kinda preaching to the choir (even though that's not actually what yer doing - yer explaining something to me )....
Damn, what a messed up sentence....
I believe in god. I believe in science.
One day the two shall meet. Probably.
It will not be the result of an arbitrary made-up pile of garbage called "Intelligent Design," but through the vigorous doing of what science does.
-
Personally I just think "ID" is a secularist way to say I don't believe Darwin was/is the only way.
-
"Interesting."
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Personally I just think "ID" is a secularist way to say I don't believe Darwin was/is the only way.
Yeah, and I don't "believe" that lesbians can't be converted.
Er.... heh, I'm just gettin' goofy.... but....
They can "think" that Darwin doesn't make any sense all they want.
Until they can tell anyone "why" in any intelligable manner they are.... .... borderline insane or just hypnotized.
-
Lets put it this way:
Is there any reason why God and Darwin can't both be right?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lets put it this way:
Is there any reason why God and Darwin can't both be right?
yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus Loves me
Yes Jesus Loves me the bible tells me so
at least that's what I think is it. I haven't studied Genisis to know whether it should be taken as literally as it says. I'm not really a literalist persay when it "cometh to the word!"
EDIT:
And as it's been pointed out to ME many times. People KNEW the world was flat for many years. Until Colombus
-
Oh.... yuck... that bible thing.....
That aint god.
That's just a book.
-
Originally posted by MrBill
I believe that a "day" (for the 7 day creation WJC reference) to God is a really, really long time and evolution is his method of creating all life on earth ...
"When I got up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in med school" -- George Burns as God in "Oh God"
There are several "goldilocks" zones, fundamental forces which must be closely balanced to allow for life. Epsilon was noted above, as was the orbital distance of the Earth. Some others are The relative strength of Gravity vs the Electrical force, Omega; the relative density of the universe, Lambda; The cosmological constant, Q; the amplitude of irregularities on the Cosmic Background Radiation, and D; the number of spatial dimensions.
If any of these numbers were pretty much anything other than what they are we would not exist.
The odds are indeed astonomical, but astronomical stuff happens frequently... look up when you are outside.
-
Bummer.
For some... gotta be a tough nut to swallow, our existience owed to a cosmic fart.
Suits, tho. My faith in the cosmic fairness of the lottery is restored.
'Ta win it, yah gotsta be innit'.
-
How exactly does one go about falsifying a theory of intelligent design?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
How exactly does one go about falsifying a theory of intelligent design?
-- Todd/Leviathn
zactly.
-
Hi Saburo,
What makes these atheists "militant"?
I thought militants were fanatics that used violence to try to get their way.
Usually the status quo of any group tends to view out of the box thinking by others with some resistance when that thinking goes against established, common ideals.
Kind of the human nature in us.
How about using "stubborn" instead of "militant" in your description? Seems a bit more accurate.
Sorry about the use of the word "militant", I meant it in the sense of aggressively promoting, and refusing to allow for even the consideration of other possibilities. I'm more than happy to simply say "atheist" and leave it at that.
- SEAGOON
-
You wouldn't blame us for wanting you to speak on the discussion you've spawned since, would you?
-
How exactly does one go about falsifying a theory of intelligent design?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Unintelligently?
>end of joke>
Intellegent Design requires the belief in an intellegent designer, ie God. That requires that a leap of faith be taken. A leap of faith is by definition illogical.
The scientific method is based on logic. Intellegent design strays from science and into the realm of faith.
-
And that's the difference.
School is for learning. Learning how to learn. Methods of facing and dealing with questions.
Not being told how things work and suck it up 'cuz that's how it is.
If that was what school was, I'd just quit.
-
in my limited intelect I can only say this. These brain trust guys sit around and think till it hurts. Alot of the stuff they come up with are scientific theory based on said method. It cannot be actually physically proven so a leap of faith in science (IE 1+1 does in fact equal 2 why because math tells us so) I know it's not so simple as that but that's the best I got.
Electricity for example, The flow of electrons cannot be physically proven......except by mathmatics. We know twinkle twinkle little star E= I times R. There for electricity can be proven.
sometimes when you crunch the numbers it doesnt add up. We are finding this out through scientific method about Darwinism wich leads us to explore other areas of thought. To simply dismiss ID or creationism as religious bable is like columbus beleiving that thinking the world is round is hericy (SP?)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
To simply dismiss ID or creationism as religious bable is....
That's the problem, Gunslinger.
Nobody is dismissing anything were it not unjustifyable.
In science, you work with what you know, and move outwards.
You don't take on preposition the outwards, and try to move inwards.
-
The theory of electricity is valid because its effects can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
The standard model of particle physics brought forth by quantum theory can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
General relativity can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
The existance of God can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
(Oops... went one too far there)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The theory of electricity is valid because its effects can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
The standard model of particle physics brought forth by quantum theory can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
General relativity can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
The existance of God can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
(Oops... went one too far there)
yes but what if the evolution of life could not be experimentally measured and was mathmatically un-predictable? Like I said the numbers don't crunch....next step....why don't they crunch.
OTOH I'd really like to hear about the missing links to darwins evolution. I know one was posted earlier pertaining to protiens and DNA/RNA but I havn't seen much else posted here.
-
Hi Nash,
Originally posted by Nash
Intelligent Design aint nothing like that. It's a fully formed idea. It has nothing to do with problem solving. Through it, you wouldn't be teaching kids how to observe, research, and learn... you would simply be telling them: "This is how it is."
Ladies and gentlemen - that aint a school. That's a church.
...
But by mandating Intelligent Design, it's as if you'd want to render mankind incapable of that.
[As you read the following, please try to keep in mind that I'm an ex-evolutionist myself]
Actually, Intelligent Design is anything but a fully-formed idea. At present it is a developing paradigm, a theory being tweaked and worked on that some scientists believe might explain the existing data better than the theory of Darwinian Evolution. The problem they are having, is that with the exception of a few publishers and journals, no one wants to be seen dead discussing this subject, especially in the academic institutions - to do so is instantly to be ostracized and assume pariah status in the scientific community. Nothing short of a pilgrimmage to the grave of Clarence Darrow and 30 or so apologetic papers praising Darwin to the skies will gain you readmittance.
As a result, most scientists who want to pursue development of the theory end up in a Catch-22 situation where the only instutions that will let them do so are either religious or very light-weight and inclined more to philosophy than "hard science."
Although ID is being tarred with the "religious" label its development is being fueled by ordinary non-religious scientists like xrightyx who are simply coming to the conclusion that the Darwinian theory doesn't explain the data. The discipline most responsible for this being DNA research and Biochemistry which is showing to the chagrin of Darwinians that there is no natural mechanism for ADDING information to the DNA sequence that would allow for instance, for a change of species. What this means is that while we can tinker with DNA in a lab, "nature" simply doesn't have a mechanism for changing DNA in the way that would allow for Flatworms to become Field Mice. It simply can't be done, and it doesn't matter how much time or mutation one posits. Then there are other problems like the aforementioned problem of "creation" of DNA, again simple CHANCE+TIME has no biomechanical means of doing it. There is, in short, a complexity to organisms that nothing in the natural order can create or generate no matter how much time is presupposed.
This has left many scientists who are not at all religious, saying in essence, "Look I don't believe in God, or the Bible, or Church, or any of that other stuff, I just observe and report, that's all I do, and yet what I'm observing leaves me with no other option but to assume that this stuff was designed. I don't know how or by who, but I'm going to keep looking into it."
Many more who are aware of the gaps, the problems, the breakdowns, and the impossibilities are simply saying, "look I know that "evolution" can no more explain the existence of this structure any more than I could explain the existence of a pocket-watch by saying "time and chance" assembled it naturally. But if I say that in public, my career will be over forever, so I'm just going to shut-up and nod my head and keep my grants."
Now if you want more complexity of explanation in the Biochemistry area on why DNA is proving to be the death-knell to Darwinian theory, either someone competent like XrightyX is going to have to do it, or I'm going to have to start quoting brighter men than I.
- SEAGOON
-
When two scientists disagree, they do not normally invoke the secular arm; they search for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they are well aware that neither is infallible and that more data will eventually prove the postulated theory.. or disprove it.
But when two religions disagree, since there is no criteria to which either's theologians can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.
-
Hi Seagoon.
Thanks sincerely for the response.
It's heavilly filled with stuff that leaves me scratchin' my head. That don't mean that yer confusing - just means I'm kinda slow.
I'm gonna duck out, and see what Holden, Hang and DMF have to say on it. Because.... well, lets face it - that'd be more interesting..
If they don't show up, I'll pop back in.
-
Intelligent design's doubt: Is evolution the full story?
August 14, 2005
The question posed by intelligent design is not whether evolution is true, but how much it can explain.
Michael Behe, one of the idea's main proponents, is a biologist and accepts that humans are part of an evolutionary tree that dates back billions of years and includes everything from apes to mold. But he has argued, beginning with his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, that evolution cannot explain all the complexity of life.
Darwinian evolution works by variation and natural selection. DNA encodes the information that serves as the blueprint for an animal. Occasionally there are mutations in this DNA, and sexual reproduction brings the characteristics of parents together in new combinations. From this variation, the individuals that are best suited to their environment prosper and pass their characteristics to their offspring. Over millions of years, small advantages accumulate into dramatic changes -- examples of which fill the scientific literature. For example, there is a detailed fossil record of horses, and they adapted to shifting environments over 55 million years.
Behe, however, argues that Darwinian evolution cannot explain what he terms ''irreducible complexity." There are many systems in the cell that contain multiple parts, but that don't work if any of the parts is removed.
Such systems, he argues, are unlikely to come about through evolution because the pieces would have to appear all at once to give the creature a selective advantage.
Behe cites as one example the flagellum, an elaborate structure that works like a biological motor and that helps some organisms move. Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap, with a base, a spring, and a hammer. None of the pieces would evolve alone, because they are useless alone. It is thus very hard to imagine how a mousetrap could have evolved through small changes, each of which had conferred some advantage. A mousetrap is thus ''irreducibly complex."
Almost all biologists dismiss intelligent design. Many of its supporters, scientists argue, are using intelligent design to promote a political and religious agenda: undermining the teaching of evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it.
Intelligent design also does not say what the designer is, making it difficult to test the idea.
Critics of intelligent design say that evolution can produce the kinds of systems that Behe calls irreducibly complex. To use the mousetrap analogy, the spring, hammer, and platform may have each evolved on their own to perform some other, different, function and then been brought together to perform a new one -- catching mice. There is evidence, for example, that parts of the flagellum evolved for other purposes.
Behe said such alternative explanations for irreducible complexity, based in evolutionary theory, are possible. But he has said that nobody has proven, to his satisfaction, that this has ever happened.
Many people misunderstand what intelligent design and evolution have to say about religion. Neither proves or disproves the existence of God.
Even if it were accepted that evolution had been assisted by some designer, intelligent design cannot say who or what the designer is. And for all that Darwin's theory of evolution can explain, it does not explain how the universe began, or describe forces that act outside the material realm that is the domain of science.
GARETH COOK
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
And posting statements of fact that are not fact are ok?
-
Nash, it would seem that evoloution explains species development. The origin of species is entirely up in the air.
Intelligent Desigin is simply another postulation offered to caulk the gaps that evolution as we know it obviously can't explain.
In other words, as always, all the new facts don't jive with what the last commonly accepted theory postulated, and we're just getting to a new point where the scientific community is simply revamping what the legitimate questions are. They ain't even close to figuring out what the answers are.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And as it's been pointed out to ME many times. People KNEW the world was flat for many years. Until Colombus
Galileo theorized that the earth was round, he was found guilty of heresy for contradicting the bible.
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
-Ferdinand Magellan
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And posting statements of fact that are not fact are ok?
Sure, happens all the time ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nash, it would seem that evoloution explains species development. The origin of species is entirely up in the air.
Intelligent Desigin is simply another postulation offered to caulk the gaps that evolution as we know it obviously can't explain.
In other words, as always, all the new facts don't jive with what the last commonly accepted theory postulated, and we're just getting to a new point where the scientific community is simply revamping what the legitimate questions are. They ain't even close to figuring out what the answers are.
Thanks for the summary. I thought for a minute there that I was losing my mind. :)
I'm gonna resort back to the basic simple fact: Science is a method, a way of discovery. Scientists can't explain everything, and they aren't as pompous as to think that they can.
They look at some evidence, and make an assumption based on it. That will lead to new areas of thought. Some other peice of evidence will be found based on that earlier assumption, and may very well prove that earlier theory wrong.... leading to a new direction.....
And so it goes.
It may be science - but nobody said it was clean.
The diference is.... Science tells you to keep looking. Intelligent Design tells you to stop.
-
Thought it used to be "scientific fact" long ago that the "scientific" thinking was that God existed as a matter of "fact."
Those that went against the held ideals of the time were thought to be "infidels" for thinking such sacrilegious thoughts. The "science" of the time revolved around religion. Some dared think outside the established box and expanded science towards what it is today. It is continually evolving.
Until the existence of God can be established with supportive facts, it will seemingly always be considered a "leap of faith" rather than a "scientific" fact.
-
Ok my take on this...
I think Darwin just got a small piece of the puzzle, but so did Newton with his gravity interpretation.
When Einstein came along, it was clear that Newton had seen just a fraction of the whole formula, and even Einstein just got part of it.
Does that mean that because Einstein (or Bohr) didn't get it all right you have to "invent" a new, untestable theory that magically fills in the gaps?
No, you just keep on looking... harder.
Daniel
-
Cyrano - bravo.
-
If anyone thinks that all of life and the universe was created at random or from thin air, then they are the one's with the irrational logic and simple, closed views.
If you really think about how exact the conditions had to be for ANY life to exist on earth, then couple that with the complexity of our entire ecosystem right down to DNA, then still believe it just happened by chance, then you might be considered the close minded ones.
-
Yup. Sooner or latter the discussion will get around to the cambrian rock 'debate'.. gawd only know's the ID lobby had a field day. Sad truth is, since 1952 and the revelation thru DNA that man didn't evolve from a shrew, Darwins Theory as he penned it thumped into into a dumpster.
Again, science is always trying to get a grip on the slippery questions... more questions than theory's exist.
Pardon my wry smile as I offer that the answer to 'evolution' may come from some other field of scientific research. Can you say space-time continuium? Dimensional Mechanics?
Mebbe we're all devolved from bacteria spawned from a passing ailen spaceships chunk of blue ice.
I kinda favor that one, myself. ;)
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
If anyone thinks that all of life and the universe was created at random or from thin air, then they are the one's with the irrational logic and simple, closed views.
If you really think about how exact the conditions had to be for ANY life to exist on earth, then couple that with the complexity of our entire ecosystem right down to DNA, then still believe it just happened by chance, then you might be considered the close minded ones.
LOL, what a way to twist things around. If God actually exists, then science will eventually exhaust its present efforts before the truth is found. There are always those continually searching for answers, the truth. Someday we'll find them. That's what makes science "open minded". To argue that we accept the truth without factual data and stop our search is kind of closed minded from my perspective.
I would think everyone would want to know what the actual truth is regardless of affilliation. Right now, the idea of God's existence is based on faith, not fact....to date. Science may someday change that. True knowledge will set us all free. I hope to live to see the day. I doubt it though. I'll settle for I hope we find it before we kill each other off as a human species.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, what a way to twist things around. If God actually exists, then science will eventually exhaust its present efforts before the truth is found. There are always those continually searching for answers, the truth. Someday we'll find them. That's what makes science "open minded". To argue that we accept the truth without factual data and stop our search is kind of closed minded from my perspective.
I would think everyone would want to know what the actual truth is regardless of affilliation. Right now, the idea of God's existence is based on faith, not fact....to date. Science may someday change that. True knowledge will set us all free. I hope to live to see the day. I doubt it though. I'll settle for I hope we find it before we kill each other off as a human species.
Yup.
And don't think fer a minute it ain't a race. ;)
"Survival of the Species is Everybody's Business".
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yup.
And don't think fer a minute it ain't a race. ;)
"Survival of the Species is Everybody's Business".
Yeah, but unfortunetly, we keep thinking that somehow some of the species is better then the other. Us vs Them, the universal war motive.
-
People who dismiss ID are closing their minds to a logical explanation to life and the universe.
Funny how people that claim to be open minded about everything under the sun, rule out any chance that a superior being created our life and universe. Seems kind of stubborn and close minded too me.
If Darwin believers think that all life was created at random, and take by faith that the overwelming long odds actually occured, then they should be open minded enough to think that a god could exist against all logic as well.
People are funny.
-
Godzilla, the facts ain't in. Darwin's theory is trash since disproven in 1952. Yes, he was the first to postulate evolution but his version of the theory ain't the working model science is wrestling with today.
Now despite the 'evolution' of the THEORY of evolution there remains significantly less evidence for ID than evolution (without the 'darwin' attached, thanks).
Now, scientists are realizing that the current version of evolution theory doesn't seem to fit the model... which implys more questions, requiring more research to get the answers. Just like they did 50 years ago when DNA chucked out darwins version.
Which absolutely does NOT prove creationists are right and evolutionists are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Which absolutely does NOT prove creationists are right and evolutionists are wrong.
Yeah, they just bar any idea of ID from being taught as a possibility, even though it is every bit as logical as Darwinism.
-
It is not as logical as Darwinism as it requires an element of faith. Darwinism has a fossilized record... Try to explain Neanderthal man and Lucy without evolution. There are examples in the insect world of species change during man's industrial era. That natural selection occurs is not in question, it is a verifiable scientific fact.
The big bang is a completely logical extrapolation of general relativity umtil the universe gets so small relativity crashes into Quantum theory. The last few (first few) moments cannot be extrapolated as theory breaks down. Science accepts that until someone can push back the logical barrier with reason.
However, like closing the patent office in 1890, closing arguments and declaring anything as the ultimate truth is a mistake and science allows for that too.
-
To me ID is a kind of laziness.
When confronted with a situation where the questions are growing faster and more complex than our current knowledge and technology allow us to answer, we give up and say "well someone cleverer than us did all this and so we'll leave it at that" .
We seem to have developed an arrogance that we have all the information we need to develop a final answer in our lifetimes when in fact we don't even know the basic facts.
We cannot control gravity or time - two of the basic elements of our universe. We theorise about spacetime without even the basic tools to explore the concept.
But evidently some in the scientific community find the idea of thousands more years of questioning too hard to deal with and are going to leave it at the Great Designer level.
Faith is what people develop to counter the fear of the unknown and, with a cognitive lifespan of maybe 60-80 years for most of us, most things in life will remain unknowns. We travel a short individual journey in a vast barely explored universe. The idea of Design implies a purpose for every item in the design - an implication that each of our existances has a part in the design - an implication of pre-destiny. That is faith.
The knowledge base that the human race has now has been collected from tiny peices over thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of individual lives. To stop the process of searching now and meerly seek to prove the existance of an Intelligent Designer is in my mind wasting that history. To accept ID is to assume we have reached the limit of human learning in my mind - to say "this is more than we can understand and so all we can do is to look for evidence there is a greater intelligence"
For me there is not anough information to make any descision in any direction - we simply do not know enough. Maybe I can add a tiny piece to human knowledge, maybe not but we shouldn't stop looking for pieces and stop our children is irresponsible. I'm glad our ancestors didn't do that.
-
You should all just realize that you are living in a Computer Simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html)
-
You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design. As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science. Pseudo-science maybe.
The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results. We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement. I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing. Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Hang, I’m curious as to why you think the discovery of DNA was not consistent with biologic evolution?
-
As ever with the creationist/evolution and now intelligent design debate. We are not comparing like with like.
First off, Seagoon admits himself that he is a biblical creationist. Thus it is in his interest to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. If ID does this so much the better. Later he and his faithful can see off ID and the field will be theirs.
But to be honest biblical creation should not even be mentioned in the same breath as evolution or for that matter ID. Quite simply it is a religious viewpoint has no evidence to support it or for that matter any basis in reality. It's just a story in an old book.
Every religion has it's own variation.
The problem with ID is that it implies a form of God figure who intervenes at some point to boost some process of change in life.
That simply make no sense either.
If evolution hasn't explained every possible event or process that is only because the scientists themselves haven't evolved their thinking to the point where they can explain it. ID doesn't do that because in effect the individuals who propagate the theory have found sudden changes, (sudden here can mean tens of thousands of years), which do not fit the usual explanation. Their solution is to add in an outside influence.
That would be to ignore latent abilities or changes which are useless to us now but added to odd mutation could mean the difference between survival of the species or extinction. Like Bustrs Norwegian fetching cat. A useless trait now but perhaps sometime in the future add another mutation and it becomes the difference between survival and extinction.
If global warming becomes fact the species likely to survive will be those who cope with heat. Like immunity to anti malaria drugs. When no one treated malaria immunity to Quinine was useless. Now the only surviving malaria bugs are immune and so it goes on for each anti malaria drug introduced.
Then there was the moth extant in the North of England. They were camoflaged to blend with tree bark. Mostly light coloured. The occasional dark mutation did not last long because birds could see it on a light coloured tree. Then the industrial revolution came and blackened the tree with soot. Guess which coloured moth survived?
If that does not of itself prove actual evolution. Then nothing will.
-
Late to the party, and definitely not able to (or interested in) giving final words. Gotta say I'm pretty impressed with the thread's tone, given the inflammatory topic and, well, OClub tradition.
Just a couple thoughts for consideration...using cpxxx's post as a summary for convenenience only....
Originally posted by cpxxx
As ever with the creationist/evolution and now intelligent design debate. We are not comparing like with like.
First off, Seagoon admits himself that he is a biblical creationist. Thus it is in his interest to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. If ID does this so much the better. Later he and his faithful can see off ID and the field will be theirs.
I suspect both sides in the creationist vs evolutionist debate are used to keeping a steady eye on how stuff affects their opponents' arguments.
But just because an idea is useful to one side or another does not have any impact on the idea's truth. In this situation, Seagoon's beliefs are irrelevant to the truth of the ID concept. When a man in the desert sees an oasis, it's naturally in his interest for it to be real -- but that doesnt prove it's a mirage. The situation needs to be analyzed on its own merits.
Originally posted by cpxxx
But to be honest biblical creation should not even be mentioned in the same breath as evolution or for that matter ID. Quite simply it is a religious viewpoint has no evidence to support it or for that matter any basis in reality. It's just a story in an old book
....snip.....
The problem with ID is that it implies a form of God figure who intervenes at some point to boost some process of change in life.
That simply make no sense either.
....snip.....
If evolution hasn't explained every possible event or process that is only because the scientists themselves haven't evolved their thinking to the point where they can explain it.
Both religionists and non-religionists have preconceptions and biases. When trying to actively think -- as opposed to cruising on assumptions, which adherents on both sides are wont to do -- at the very least we should be aware of our assumptions, try to minimize their impact. Again, are we looking at ID or fghting about world views?
Originally posted by cpxxx
....snip....
Then there was the moth extant in the North of England. They were camoflaged to blend with tree bark. Mostly light coloured. The occasional dark mutation did not last long because birds could see it on a light coloured tree. Then the industrial revolution came and blackened the tree with soot. Guess which coloured moth survived?
If that does not of itself prove actual evolution. Then nothing will.
This touches on a key, often overlooked issue in the evolution discussion. There is a distinct difference between the natural selection componenets of evolutionary theory, and the question of evolutionary origins.
I've yet to meet a creationist who disputes the existance of natural selection. When the creationists I've talked to say "evolution", they're referring to either life origins or speciation. There is a very long step between selective advantages of TP fetching cat behavior and the evolution of new life forms.
Evolutionary originists believe that the step can be bridged by randomness and NATURAL selection (ie without outside intervention), plus time.
Creationists believe that step was bridged by God.
And (pure, non factional) intelligent design theorists suggest that there must be another, nonrandom factor to explain what we see. They say that in effect there is either not enough time since the formation of earth as determined by science to account for the complexities seen; or, that some structures are too complex to have originated as a unit by chance alone.
The word "intelligent" is the flash point. First, it is necessary in the idea. I cant think of another term to describe the (undefined !!!) force that would be able to both introduce nonrandomness and explain massive doses of complexity like DNA. I'm open to suggestions, though. Second, it is highly charged for both sides, becasue it's equally hard to imagine a force capable of introducing that complexity without it looking a lot like a god.
So, the partisans on both sides line up predicatbly for and aginst the concept based on its implictions rather than its correctness or inaccuracy.
Is that what we're doing too?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design. As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science. Pseudo-science maybe.
The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results. We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement. I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing. Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.
-- Todd/Leviathn
By your definition of science, can any theory of origins be scientific? Using your definition, can one time events like the origin of matter, or time, or life be tested by reproducable, disprovable processes?
I have trouble imagining any theory of origins being tested, except by observation of current findings (like an expanding universe), and extrapolation backwards.
I sense that's exactly what ID theorists are doing -- observing the nature and frequency of current mutations, extrapolating backwards, and finding things dont add up with randomness alone.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
So, the partisans on both sides line up predicatbly for and aginst the concept based on its implictions rather than its correctness or inaccuracy.
See, that's the thing. Science is a method. ID is a concept.
School is about teaching people how to learn. Science class ultimately isn't there to teach you its concept of evolution, it's there to teach you how to perhaps one day, even prove the theory false.
With ID, you'd basically be taking over the class and barking dogma at them. That isn't what school should be about in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Hang, I’m curious as to why you think the discovery of DNA was not consistent with biologic evolution?
DNA does not disprove evolution, it did force a huge revision of Darwins theory. Simply put, DNA evidence suggests that dogs cannot evolve into cats via natural selection. This crushed the Darwinian Model which proposed that all life evolved from one common ancestor.
There's a big crowd that insists that gene mutation can supply new information to DNA. Unfortunately, no examples have yet been discovered where gene mutation has resulted in a whole new species. We have plenty of examples of in-species mutation from cat and dog breeding to moths... but no leaps from cat to dog from moths.
This is nothin 'new', the formal scrapping of Darwins 'Origins' in the scientific community happened better than 50 years ago. We're STILL hearing the wailing from the religionist crowd, which has decided that since Darwins Model is defunct then their model must be the correct one.
Why on earth 'Creationists' would find the emperical update to the theory of evolution (vis a vis, scrapping Darwin's take on it) to be 'proof of intelligent design' makes very little sense.. science has traced the human species back four million years, with not a shred of evidence for 'Adam or Eve'.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design. As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science. Pseudo-science maybe.
The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results. We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement. I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing. Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You cannot falsify the theory of evolution...without being ridiculed by a 'scientist' or anyone who deems their education/reading more credible. By the same token, you cannot disprove creationism or ID. Creationists could just say: You weren't there on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd day. ID is not a theory in the same sense. I don't think anyone who promotes ID is putting on the same level as Darwinian Evolution. It is more like an attempt to say "we don't know all the answers, yet...".
The theory of evolution cannot exactly be tested like the theory of gravity. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. But how do you test for evolution? It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a species to be selected. We don't have the time to run the experiments. Soooooo...we look to the fossil record. That's not testing a theory in the true sense.
Originally posted by Sparks
To me ID is a kind of laziness.
I disagree. ID speaks more to a scientist's honesty and willingness to say "we don't know all the answers".
Edit: forgot an important 'not' :)
-
I can't believe that anyone even cares to debate about this issue in this century. They could aswell argue that the world is flat.
-
But Einstein showed that the world is indeed flat.
The spacetime in which the world exists is warped due to gravity which makes the flat surface of the earth appear a spheroid.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But Einstein showed that the world is indeed flat.
The spacetime in which the world exists is warped due to gravity which makes the flat surface of the earth appear a spheroid.
Dude... puff... puff... pass.
;)
-
ID should be taught in science class as an example of really bad science. Then the teacher can take out evolution and clobber it's head with it.
-
If you really think about how exact the conditions had to be for ANY life to exist on earth, then couple that with the complexity of our entire ecosystem right down to DNA, then still believe it just happened by chance, then you might be considered the close minded ones.
If Darwin believers think that all life was created at random, and take by faith that the overwelming long odds actually occured, then they should be open minded enough to think that a god could exist against all logic as well.
I suck at math, but I guess not that badly. We have a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. There might be as many as 100 million reasonably Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone. There are at least 100 billion galaxies. I would say, given the math, that it’s almost guaranteed that we are not alone. While life might not be common with billions upon billions of planets to work with, the numbers would at least be in the thousands (being extraordinarily conservative).
Who created the intelligent designer, BTW? Where did he or she go to school to learn all this stuff? Where's that Ark the size of Australia, and what happened to the first Old Testament that talked about the dinosaurs? With the advancement of science, why have all the modern-day miracles settled out at “seeing†Jesus’ face on some salt stain or grilled cheese sandwich? Inquiring minds want to know. Why would an intelligent designer create an afterlife? Why has the soul that goes to heaven never been detected? Why did the intelligent designer do such a poor job with his primary creation here on earth, and when will she realize the mistake and toss the petri dish? Since I'm going though a bit of a midlife crisis, and can't just accept feel good things on faith alone, I would really like the answers to these common sense, logical questions.
Charon
-
Science is a method, evolution is a concept. The main crux for science occurs when one belief limits it's development based on their pre-conceived ideas. The main point of this thread seems to be that evolutionists are just as capable in these regards as creationists.
If you believe a religion has to be involved to create a zealot, you were asleep during the 1900's.
-
It is an important topic Mora. An understanding of how natural selection truly works may have serious and far reaching consequences for the survival of humankind, biologically and societally.
Righty, it is absolutely honest for scientists to state they don't know all the answers. It seems that would be an important part of the scientific method.
No one as yet has brough forth a provable scientific explanation concerning the origins of life. Darwin himself didn't know, and the co-founder of the natural selection theory of evolution (Alfred Russel Wallace) stated in his writings that through his observations, and taken to be evidence upon close examination of complex structures found in nature, it would be unscientific to dismiss a "vital" force at work. In other words, far from randomness, a vital force designed all things. Evidently Darwin respected Wallace enough to arrange a pension for his colleague, who was not financially well off.
So at least one of the original founders of the theory of evolution did indeed state the idea of deliberate design concerning evolutionary processes.
Les
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Science is a method, evolution is a concept. The main crux for science occurs when one belief limits it's development based on their pre-conceived ideas. The main point of this thread seems to be that evolutionists are just as capable in these regards as creationists.
If you believe a religion has to be involved to create a zealot, you were asleep during the 1900's.
Actually, I hadn't even evolved yet. ;)
-
Originally posted by mora
I can't believe that anyone even cares to debate about this issue in this century. They could aswell argue that the world is flat.
The lines have been drawn...
Originally posted by Thrawn
ID should be taught in science class as an example of really bad science. Then the teacher can take out evolution and clobber it's head with it.
The sides are entrenched...
Originally posted by Mini D
The main point of this thread seems to be that evolutionists are just as capable in these regards as creationists.
Mini D trying to make sense of it all...
To Thrawn and Mora,
Genetic evolution is based on mutations in our DNA. They happen all the time. Most get repaired and the moth or tree doesn't notice. Sometimes they produce good results for the organism, like bacteria in anti-biotic resistance. Most of the time, the results are bad--i.e. cancer and many other diseases.
Given that a single point mutation in an organism's DNA can lead to loss of viability, a huge collection of mutations leading to a benificial change (longer teeth, greater wingspan, bigger brain) seems highly unlikely. But...I don't dispute that it sometimes happens and that evolution does occur.
However, I there are some examples that just cannot be explained. Here are a few:
Molecular Machines (http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm)
But the arguments can be reduced even more to the very beginning of the existence of DNA. How did the first DNA become organized? If you think about DNA as simply information storage--say, a book--how did the first sentence even get put together? DNA requires machinery to replicate. How did the instructions for that machinery get first written?
In short, it seems highly improbable to me, that the instructions for making even the simplest forms of life could be spontaneously encoded into DNA. It's like taking 3000 lbs of iron filings, throwing it in the air and having it land as a Ferrari.
-
Even Einstein beleived that the universe was the work of intelligent design.
He said that we are like children walking into a great library, viewing all the books. We do not understand most of them, yet we know that some intelligence created them.
That's paraphrasing what he said. Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a creator.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Even Einstein beleived that the universe was the work of intelligent design.
He said that we are like children walking into a great library, viewing all the books. We do not understand most of them, yet we know that some intelligence created them.
That's paraphrasing what he said. Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a creator.
Nope. Einstein's God ain't the one you'd like it to be.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
-
Hangtime, he said didn't beleive in a "personal" God who cares about us as individuals. I have read his speaches and comments on the matter, including his clarifications.
He did beleive in a creator though, one who designed and created the univeres. All it takes is a little google to find all of his quotes about the matter.
I will post them if I have time.
-
Here are just a few quotes from Albert Einstein. He had the intelligence to come to the rational conclusion that the universe had to have been created by design.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "
"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief, which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God, which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'"
-
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
“When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed with the futility of the hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly through life. Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase, which in those years was much more carefully covered up by hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today. By the mere existence of his stomach everyone was condemned to participate in that chase. The stomach might well be satisfied by such participation, but not man insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
“As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.”
Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1979, pp 3-5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.”
Albert Einstein; quoted in W. I. Hermanns, "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943, Einstein Archive 55-285; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 215.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134. )
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a minister November 20, 1950; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 95.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”
Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.”
Albert Einstein in responce to a child who had written him in 1936 and asked if scientists pray; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 32.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”
Albert Einstein; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 66.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 29-30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964; also quoted as "God does not play dice with the world." in Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”
Albert Einstein; from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 622.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
And here's the one I was paraphrasing.
Einstein, when asked if he believed in God.
"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. "
-
“During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required—not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
“To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
“We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
“The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
“But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 26-29.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter February 5, 1921; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.”
Albert Einstein, letter to V. T Aaltonen, May 7, 1952, Einstein Archive 59-059; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by XrightyX
In short, it seems highly improbable to me, that the instructions for making even the simplest forms of life could be spontaneously encoded into DNA. It's like taking 3000 lbs of iron filings, throwing it in the air and having it land as a Ferrari.
How many chemical reactions happened in the primordial soup? The number is mind bogglingly large I can't even conceive of it. But I bet if you throw your iron fillings in the air that many times you will end up with a Ferrari.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=110
-
Hangtime, you are getting confused by relgion. Einstein beleived a superior intelligence was behind the design of the universe.
He did not beleive in a God who cared about humans as individuals, nor was he religious.
-
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”
Albert Einstein in a letter, 1954; from Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, Greenwood Pub., 1984, p. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.”
Albert Einstein; from Gerald Holton, Einstein: History, and Other Passions, Woodbury, NY: Perseus Press, 1996, p. 172.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“His [Einstein] was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith not capabIe of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ (‘Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.’). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’ (‘Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.’)”
Abraham Pais, Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with different names what to more ordinary mortals — and to most Jews — looked like a variant of simple agnosticism. Replying in 1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exist, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." And it is claimed that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass, agreed that there must be something behind the energy." No doubt. But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a celestial machine minder, running the universe with indisputable authority and expert touch. Instead, Einstein's God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron. This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein's God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who at the courage, imagination, and persistence to go on searching for them. It was to this past which he began to turn his mind soon after the age of twelve. The rest of his life everything else was to seem almost trivial by comparison.”
Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing, 1971, pp. 19-20.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How many chemical reactions happened in the primordial soup? The number is mind bogglingly large I can't even conceive of it. But I bet if you throw your iron fillings in the air that many times you will end up with a Ferrari.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=110
Thrawn, how did the "primordial soup" come into existance.? That's the kind of thoought you must have in order to understand the bigger issues of creation.
-
I agree Hangtime, Einstein was not religious and did not belive in a personal god who cared about humans.
He did however beleive that a superior intelligence created the Universe.
-
Hi Cpxxx,
Originally posted by cpxxx
First off, Seagoon admits himself that he is a biblical creationist. Thus it is in his interest to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. If ID does this so much the better. Later he and his faithful can see off ID and the field will be theirs.
A few points need to be made about this and a few other related misconceptions.
First off, Intelligent Design and Biblical Creationism are entirely different. And I am far from being a proponent of ID as it has developed in the scientific community. True, the Biblical Creationists and the ID proponents both share a belief that the theory of evolution does not and can not explain the "origin of species" but there most of the similarities between the two end. ID is a theory that can be held by anyone not absolutely convinced that a) there is no possibility of an architect (or architects) who could have created the universe or whose faith in Darwinian evolution is so unshakeably established that no evidence to the contrary will even be entertained. A believer in ID could be an 18th century deist, a monotheist, a polytheist, a platonist, or any one of thousands of other varieties of worldviews and religions. As such, while ID is conveniently caricatured (because it plays well in the media and the academy and amongst the intelligentsia) as ignorant "Christian Fundamentalism" in a sophisticated package, one doesn't need to even be a monotheist or even a Christian, much less a bible believing evangelical to believe it. For instance, how many billions of non-evangelicals have walked the face of this planet who would subscribe to the statement "I believe the world was created" without being willing to say "I believe Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God."
Personally, I have no real interest in getting people to simply believe that life is the result of intelligent design, my interest is in the Designer and His message to His creation, which the ID proponents are not interested in and unless they find it imbedded in a DNA helix aren't going to discuss.
Secondly, and this is another major point of difference between ID and Biblical Creationism, both the ID proponents and the Neo-Darwinians are both looking at what they consider to be evidence and coming to different conclusions. For instance the fossil record doesn't "prove" Darwinianism, quite the opposite in fact. Darwinians always assumed they would find "transitional life forms" showing the development of one species into another. They haven't, and in fact, recent digs particularly in the Cambrian strata in China are showing that the classic Darwinian tree, which went from a single common ancestor to all life to increasing diversity is actually upside-down. There was a sudden "explosion" of life in the Cambrian period, and much less diversity afterwards, in other words, there are fewer and fewer lifeforms as one goes up the tree not more and more. The fossil record tells us that species became extinct, but it doesn't tell us new ones evolved from the existing ones. All the assumptions, taken on faith, by Darwinian scientists in the 19th century have failed to pan out in the fossil record, so a new paradigm is necessary if science isn't to become an irrelevant fossil itself.
Also the idea that ID is scientifically lazy, couldn't be further from the truth. Two scientists look at a fossil one says "evolved obviously - even though I can't tell from what" while the other says, "no, the evidence would indicate design but I don't know who designed it, how, what it did, and so on, but I intend to find out." Scientific inquiry, experiment, and all the other things related to the the scientific process are still required in both cases, what is different are only their presuppositions.
Now I haven't discussed biblical creationism in any depth, because the original article and the ID discussion are only at best peripherially related to it, and that only by caricature and straw-man argument of the "all conservatives must be Nazis because none of them are communists" variety. If some one wants an explanation of biblical creationism and why it is dependent on facts of an entirely different nature - for instance, the Biblical Creationists don't start with Fossils, or Organisms, or DNA as both ID and Darwinian proponents do (but they don't start with naked fideism either) - I'd be willing to do that, but it really isn't related to ID and certainly not to the persecuted scientist whose plight started this discussion. As far as that is concerned, Sternberg himself is critical of biblical creationism.
Then there was the moth extant in the North of England. They were camoflaged to blend with tree bark. Mostly light coloured. The occasional dark mutation did not last long because birds could see it on a light coloured tree. Then the industrial revolution came and blackened the tree with soot. Guess which coloured moth survived?
If that does not of itself prove actual evolution. Then nothing will.
Welcome to "Legends of Neo-Darwinianism." Cpxxx, the study you've cited was done by a fellow by the name of H.B.D. Kettlewell in the 1950s and is still making its way into college and high-school text books. The conclusions (along with some questionable practices in the study such as pasting dead moths in locations they wouldn't normally frequent) have been analyzed and discussed at length. But what is never mentioned is that the moths were not an evidence of macro-evolution at all, just normal fluctuations in the peppered moth population. In years when the lighter moths were particularly subject to bird predation, the dark moths predominated naturally, but the interesting thing is that the moth population always returned to the "normal" DNA encoded standard. In other words, the darker strain became predominant for a while, but the standard strain never went away, and indeed the population always returned to normal balance. Also, you never had the moth turning into something other than a peppered moth or anything in the DNA helix that would allow for it. We don't even see the beginnings of such a change.
- SEAGOON
-
Now, assuming the bible thumpers that seem to insist despite the massive wall of evidence above that Einstein did NOT believe in their God will stop attempting to use his work as proofs that he did, we can get back to the discussion at hand.
that is, should they survive the climb down that wall of text to begin with without divine intervention.
Sorry.. pet peeve of mine.. using Einstein to prove God just annoys the hell outta me.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Thrawn, how did the "primordial soup" come into existance.? That's the kind of thoought you must have in order to understand the bigger issues of creation.
Skip the intermediary steps and ask, "Where did the big bang come from?".
My answer is, "I don't know, we don't have enough information yet.".
A creationist's answer would probably be, "God.".
Great, prove it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
But I bet if you throw your iron fillings in the air that many times you will end up with a Ferrari.
[url]
You really think that, yet rule out the possibility of a greater intelligence?
That's the amusing thing to me.....people will put their faith in anything, yet turn a blind eye to the idea that something intelligent created the univeres.
How did the iron come to be? Simple minded people close their minds.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Skip the intermediary steps and ask, "Where did the big bang come from?".
My answer is, "I don't know, we don't have enough information yet.".
A creationist's answer would probably be, "God.".
Great, prove it.
Why not have science prove it? You are taking by faith that science is correct, yet science cant even begin to explain the origin of matter.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Why not have science prove it? You are taking by faith that science is correct, yet science cant even begin to explain the origin of matter.
So, lets check back in a few hundered years and see how science made out.
The facts ain't all in yet. We're not even certain of the questions yet. We're infants in the cosmos.. and the answers are not yet in our realm of understanding.
If you wanna shortcut the scientifc process and make a leap of faith and hence a pronouncement, kewl. But don't assume for even an instant that your answer is the correct one unless you've got proof.[/i]
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Why not have science prove it? You are taking by faith that science is correct, yet science cant even begin to explain the origin of matter.
"Well gosh, I guess science is useless then.", he typed into his computer then sent the message hundreds of miles across the internet.
Heh, as to your point about being open minded. I already said I don't know how the universe started. You apparently already know the answer. Who has the close mind.
But to further the point, I'm ready, willing, and able to believe that God created the universe...the moment you prove it.
-
I'm open minded. I happen to have come to the conclusion that it is not logical to rule out a superior intelligence.
In fact, I think it's illogical to assume that the universe could "only" have been created by chance.
Call me silly.
-
Silly :p
Now my turn: pull my finger
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
I'm open minded. I happen to have come to the conclusion that it is not logical to rule out a superior intelligence.
In fact, I think it's illogical to assume that the universe could "only" have been created by chance.
Call me silly.
It is also not logical to come to the conclusion that a superior intellegence is required.
Logic = Science.... Faith = Religion .... Logic does not = Faith
-
Originally posted by Simaril
By your definition of science, can any theory of origins be scientific? Using your definition, can one time events like the origin of matter, or time, or life be tested by reproducable, disprovable processes?
I have trouble imagining any theory of origins being tested, except by observation of current findings (like an expanding universe), and extrapolation backwards.
I sense that's exactly what ID theorists are doing -- observing the nature and frequency of current mutations, extrapolating backwards, and finding things dont add up with randomness alone.
I would just like to point out that this isnt LEV's definition. It is THE definition.
-
Well, the inescapable problem with Darwinian evolution is that it is open opposition to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Harold J. Morowitz (a biophysicist and Robinson Professor of Biology at the Krasnow Institute) writes the following:
"Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.
Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy.
Dr. Hubert P. Yockey gives the subject of entropy and biology a probing and insightful treatment in his monograph, Information theory and molecular biology (26). He emphatically agrees that there are different kinds of entropy that do not correlate. "The Shannon entropy and the Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy... have nothing to do with each other" (p 313). But Shannon entropy (which pertains to information theory) makes no distinction between meaningful DNA sequences that encode life, and random DNA sequences of equal length. (Shannon wrote, "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.") With no distinction between meaningful and meaningless sequences, Yockey is able to conclude that evolution does not create any paradox for Shannon entropy. Nevertheless, Yockey proves with impressive command of biology and statistics that it would be impossible to find the new genes necessary for evolutionary progress by the random search method currently in favor.
He is deeply sceptical of the prevailing theories of evolution and the origin of life on Earth."
Darwinian evolutionary theory is losing its grip..
My regards,
Widewing
-
Apparently he does not believe in refrigerators either.
Inside my refrigerator the local entropy decreases. When I step back and look at the refrigerator as a part of a larger whole, I see that entropy of the larger system increases, thus following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and bringing the universe into harmonious balance.
-
Another thing about the entropy argument:
Entropy tends to increase... it doesn't always.
If you took a deck of cards and shuffled, the disorder would tend to rise. Shuffle the deck 7 times and they say total disorder would be achieved, at least in the opinion of Las Vegas gambling establishments.
There is the possibility, however remote, that one could take a totally random deck, shuffle it and get all the suits together and in order. This is one possibility of a fair shuffle.
In this one shuffle the entropy of the deck would decrease.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Darwinian evolutionary theory is losing its grip..
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing to be defensive of, nor triumphant about.
This is science. That's how it works. Dr. Hubert P. Yockey is a member of the scientific community. That's what they do.
I'm all for the disproving of evolutionary theory, if in fact it can be disproven. But until then.....
Intelligent Design seems to me to be bent on marching in, planting a flag down, and saying "Guess what - there must be a God. So there. End of discussion. Don't ask me to prove that, btw. So pack it in, all you science geeks. Besides, haven't you got better things to do?"
It dismisses science. Because for science to embrace this idea, they'd have to discard what it is that science is about. The scientific method. Intelligent design and the scientific method cannot co-exist. You wouldn't just be discarding a theory, you'd be tossing a whole process down the toilet.
Think it through.
If you want kids to be educated to become lazy script reciters, then ya might as well kiss NASA, alternative fuels, the latest in automotive gizmos and whatever else good-bye. Because that is what the scientific method produces.
Science and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist, and ya can't have it both ways.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is also not logical to come to the conclusion that a superior intellegence is required.
Logic = Science.... Faith = Religion .... Logic does not = Faith
I'm saying that it's not logical to dismiss it. You have dismissed it.
-
Read my post again: I did not dismiss anything.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Science and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist, and ya can't have it both ways.
Odd assumption. What do you base this on?
I think many people posting in this thread don't realize the level of faith they are putting in science.
-
(Deja - please keep in mind - I am wading in waaaay over my head here. With that said.....).
I think you might be confusing science with the theories that science has produced.
To embrace ID is to reject the Scientific Method. Because ID cannot stand up to the scrutiny of that process.
Sure, the theory of evolution may be wrong. It may be proven false one day. But that will only happen via scientific method. For now, it's just a theory. That's why they call it The Theory of Evolution.
I don't have faith in theories, nor do I have faith in religious dogma. I accept them for what they are. I do have faith in the process though. At least for now, it seems to me to be the best we got.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Read my post again: I did not dismiss anything.
Then you must be open minded to ID ? Maybe our schools should be just as open minded.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.
Uh, Earth isn't in a closed system. We got a ginormous nuclear reactor feeding massive amounts of energy, and will continue to do so for about another 100 billion years.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Then you must be open minded to ID ? Maybe our schools should be just as open minded.
thats what parents and church are for.
-
A clarification of what I said is that Intellegent Design requires an Intellegent Designer.
There is no scientific evidence of an Intellegent Designer. If there were, recruitment for religions would be much simpler.
Religious belief requires a 'Leap of Faith' which by definition is illogical and unscientific. Not necessarily bad, just illogical and unscientific.
I see no problem in teaching that some scientists stray from the method and believe their own faith based beliefs. I see no reason to discourage a discussion of differences of opinion on any issue within the scientific community.
ID requires belief in God as a premise and therefore is unscientific.
Science class is for measuring and experimenting and learning about the world with a stopwatch and tape measure and ohm meter in your hands.
Unscientific things should be taught in unscience class. ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Unscientific things should be taught in unscience class. ;)
Nicely put! :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nicely put! :)
Maybe, if you are close mined. I happen to be open minded.
-
Hey man, my faith in God is probably way stronger than yer average Sunday Church goer.
And I believe in science.
I think my mind is about as open as it could possibly get.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Maybe, if you are close mined. I happen to be open minded.
I prefer open pit mines myself.
-
Hi Nash,
Originally posted by Nash
Intelligent Design seems to me to be bent on marching in, planting a flag down, and saying "Guess what - there must be a God. So there. End of discussion. Don't ask me to prove that, btw. So pack it in, all you science geeks. Besides, haven't you got better things to do?"
It dismisses science. Because for science to embrace this idea, they'd have to discard what it is that science is about.
...
Science and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist, and ya can't have it both ways.
I realize my post a little while ago got lost in the middle of the exchange between Hangtime and Godzilla, but I thought I'd at least touched on this.
Let me try again to prove to you that Science and Intelligent Design can coexist.
I trust we can all agree that "science" did not begin in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species or that Charles Darwin was the first bona fide scientist.
For instance, I hope we can agree that men like Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo where all scientists. Yes? Well, here's the thing, they all believed in Intelligent Design. In fact, Copernicus expressed the desire of most theistic scientists that it was his "loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason." He viewed the exploration of the natural world and the process of scientific discovery as in no way opposed to the principles not just of theism but Christian theism.
You see until radical materialism took over the scientific world in the 20th century, nobody seriously thought that believing the Universe was created was an inhibition to good science, in fact it spurred them on to figure things out and their faith was, in fact, strengthened as they discovered that the universe was a place of order, uniformity, and wonder. The prestigious Royal Academy of Science was founded not by a bunch of militant materialists but by Puritans the most zealously evangelical, christocentric, and bible-believing of all the protestants.
Theists have happily pursued science for thousands of years, and indeed are still doing so. In fact, if you go into the labs of the scientists working on ID you don't find them sitting around surrounded by books of theology, vigorously debating the interpretation of various passages, you find them surrounded by machines, beakers, and test tubes, doing exactly the same things their materialist buddies are doing (yeah, I know the scientists out there are chuckling "trying to win grants, seduce their assistants, and get tenure") all that is different are their propositions, theses, and conclusions.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Maybe, if you are close mined. I happen to be open minded.
which of course, does not require the baseless leaping into bed with any new hypothesis that comes along,
-
Had Copernicus looked at the wandering of the planets against the night sky and decided they wander because that was God's design were would science be today?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How many chemical reactions happened in the primordial soup? The number is mind bogglingly large I can't even conceive of it. But I bet if you throw your iron fillings in the air that many times you will end up with a Ferrari.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=110
Primordial soup? PAH-LEEZ. The article you posted does little to explain primordial soup. Suggesting that RNA or some other form of LESS stable molecules started the organization of life is completely unsubstantiated. DNA is hard enough to organize and control. When I was in high school, it was believed that life began in shallow pools at the shorelines. You got good mixing like in chemical reactions. BS I say. Sunlight kills DNA, RNA, anything with cyclic aromatic rings. Some people have suggested since their discovery, that deep sea vents may be where life started. This I believe much more than a surface model. BUT...deep sea vents weren't discovered until the latter half of the last century. Point is...the debate is on-going. Scientists still do not know how life began or where it began.
The Stanley Miller experiment (which generated the "primordial soup) assumed an oxidizing atmosphere. This is currently under debate, and the evidence suggests a reducing atmosphere. Why? The first thing that life on this planet did was oxidize almost all the iron in the oceans creating an iron-oxide rich sediment.
Again, the hand waving of some 'scientists' accompanied by "oh, there were just enough chemicals around to start off life" does not answer the question...How did it all start? Niether does the Bible (at least I don't believe that version).
Simply put: There is room to consider intelligent design w/o deeming the individual a religious nut-case with not an ounce of science in them.
Edit: Concentration of carbohydrates in a can of chicken soup is on the order of 0.1 M to 0.5M. This concentration is almost pefect for running most of the reactions I do. On the other hand, the concentration of carbohydrates in a healthy body of water today, is about 100,000 to 10,000 times less than that. I would not call even this 'soup', primordial or not. :)
-
Seagoon, hi.
Good post, and I'm in agreement with you on yer set-up.
I've got a few issues with the follow-through, tho....
Because it doesn't mean anything that these men had nagging issues of faith whilst pursuing their search.
Faith in a god, and the examination of what god has created are not mutually exclusive. Like I said, it will only be the result of these men examining their world that could result in the proof of the existence of god.
Otherwise, it all just comes down to some gawdamned book.
Let them do their job, for chrissakes.
Okay - sorry man... I'm kinda kidding - and being a jerk. :)
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Why the need to foist upon them this arbitrary theory based on faith and in so doing, ask them to reject their means of examination?
There's a lot more to science than just evolution and whatever else the church concerns themselves with. Like a cure for cancer and longer lasting erections for example.
Would you be only asking for an allowance in this instance? To make an exception when it comes to god?
That's the fundamental problem here.
You'd want to interject yourself in the process, and ask them to discard that process wrt matters of god.
Certainly you can see why that's unnacceptable, right?
-
Hi Holden,
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Had Copernicus looked at the wandering of the planets against the night sky and decided they wander because that was God's design were would science be today?
Copernicus was spurred on throughout his career to inquiry into the motions of the "wanderers" precisely because he believed that God wanted us to look into these things and that part of the reason that He had given us the ability to observe and interpret was so that we might do so. Copernicus went to his grave believing that the Heliocentric solar system was the creation of God and that the planets were in their orbits because God had put them there.
You seem to be seeing a belief that God created the universe as some sort of insurmountable obstacle to scientific inquiry, when in fact exactly the opposite was the case. That's not opinion, that's simple history, and there's no getting around the fact that some of the most important scientific theories in history were proposed and worked out by Christians who believed that they had a duty to inquire and discover the way that God made the universe.
Holden, do you seriously think all theists do is sit around waiting for the next snake-handling session? That we have no natural, God-given desire to inquire, research, analyze, question, and so on? Do you think the Royal Academy of Science was established to supress inquiry into the mechanics of the universe? What is it that convinces you that all Christians are promoting a book-burning agenda of enforced ignorance and have no desire to see science and human understanding advanced? What, simply in the microcosm of this board, would lead you to believe that the Christians here are anti-science, anti-inquiry, anti-debate, anti-learning, and so on?
Keep in mind that this all started with the story of an established scientist who was witch-hunted out of his job for daring to publish an article that challenged some of the entrenched assumptions of the materialist consensus on the basis not of faith but of observed data.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Holden, do you seriously think all theists do is sit around waiting for the next snake-handling session? That we have no natural, God-given desire to inquire, research, analyze, question, and so on?
No, I just think that Intellegent Design is lazy science. Once you answer the question with the answer that "It's Gods will" inquiry stops.
"Why is the sky blue daddy?"
"Intellegent Design, son."
If the son accepts that answer he will not learn of light refraction thru the predominant gasses in the atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(Deja - please keep in mind - I am wading in waaaay over my head here. With that said.....).
I think you might be confusing science with the theories that science has produced.
Science has not produced theories thrawn. It is a tool. People produce theories. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.
To embrace ID is to reject the Scientific Method. Because ID cannot stand up to the scrutiny of that process.
Once again... this is an odd assumption. What do you base this on?
Right now, science actually proves all current "scientific" theories on the origins of the universe to be impossible on a fundamental level. I believe ID falls back the the fundamental assumption that given the absoluteness of the laws of thermodynamics, there is no other possibility. You have to get past that to even accept the origins of the evolutionary sect.
Sure, the theory of evolution may be wrong. It may be proven false one day. But that will only happen via scientific method. For now, it's just a theory. That's why they call it The Theory of Evolution.
I don't believe it's still in the theory state, thrawn. That's what this thread started out about. The fact that this is simply accepted as the way it was in the scientific community to the point that science is disregarded to accept it... even deemed herassy.I don't have faith in theories, nor do I have faith in religious dogma. I accept them for what they are. I do have faith in the process though. At least for now, it seems to me to be the best we got.
What you don't seem to understand is that you actually have faith in the discoveries that "science" makes. Carbon dating, genetic research or whatever. These are not really specifically accurate things... that's why they are sciences. The fundamentals of science changes every day. The world is what does it on a regular basis. The more we try to define nature the more we realize we don't have a clue. Thinking that science can actually do that is a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
We can develop new technology. We can observe some cause and effect. I do beleive you misunderstand how much science is simply trying to see what happened and less about figuring out what happened.
-
Thrawn who?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Right now, science actually proves all current "scientific" theories on the origins of the universe to be impossible on a fundamental level.
Not quite[/i] correct.
The big bang theory is a relativistic theory that as we go into the past the universe shrinks to the level where relativity and quantum theory collide. No one can say what happens before that with scientific certainty.
This is much different from saying it's impossible.
-
Doh.. sorry nash.
Sorry Holden... but even remotely believing that requires every bit the faith that creationism does. Plus it requires dismissing thermodynamics.
-
As a matter of fact, the O'Club is the perfect example of all this discussion:
- Entropy always on the rise
- Threads evolve
- Members mutate (see Mr.Black)
But Intelligent Design? Pfff puuhleeeze... I mean, it's green! :D :p
Daniel
-
What... that general relativity formulas (that are proven time and again thru experimentation and engineering application to be correct to a dozen or better decimal places) if extrapolated to the extreme past show an explosive expansion from quantum size?
The Big Bang theory (which has its foundation in Einsteins General Relativity used in applied engineering and can which be measured) has no merit?
Where does General Relativity break down? It certainly does not break entropy laws, as entropy is also a cornerstone of the big bang theory.
The beilief in the expanding universe? Is that what is incorrect? Because we can measure that too.
Where does the blind faith come in?
-
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain. None. What happened after matter was introduced is another subject all together. Simply dismissing this fundamental issue does not make the problem go away.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Keep in mind that this all started with the story of an established scientist who was witch-hunted out of his job for daring to publish an article that challenged some of the entrenched assumptions of the materialist consensus on the basis not of faith but of observed data.
- SEAGOON
Please do tell, what observed DATA points to intelligent design? This religious flip flop of denial then "embracing science" when the proof is unrefutable is just another example of christianitys hypocracy.
christianity has witched hunted and burned scientists at the stake for millenia for anything that didn't fit their design, burn't down and trashed valuable libraries, some fruit loop "scientist" tries to wind us back 2000 years - gets laughed at - and the Christians come out screaming "witch hunt".
Heck, mainstream christianty even attacks christian minorities who's beliefs on creation vary slightly from their own. The bible is a work of fiction selected by committee.
Oh the irony...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain.
Next thing ya know, you'll have us saying "well then who created god?"
Or... "Can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?"
Big deal. (and nice exit plan)....
Fact is - ID is junk science. That aint gonna change no matter where ya wanna steer us.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain. None. What happened after matter was introduced is another subject all together. Simply dismissing this fundamental issue does not make the problem go away.
So dismissing the issue of who made God is okay?
The Big Bang theory does not go before the collision of Relativity and Quantum.
Science says "I don't know, but I'll continue to investigate" a perfectly logical conclusion, requiring no faith whatsoever.
-
nerds
-
I prefer Star Trek myself
-
Originally posted by Excel1
I prefer Star Trek myself
enterprise nerd !
beam yourself somewere
:p
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain. None. What happened after matter was introduced is another subject all together. Simply dismissing this fundamental issue does not make the problem go away.
Actually there is some science behind it, based around the random probability of something (the universes matter) just popping into existance. The odds are extremely slim, however slim odds + infinity =... well you figure it out ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So dismissing the issue of who made God is okay?
The Big Bang theory does not go before the collision of Relativity and Quantum.
Science says "I don't know, but I'll continue to investigate" a perfectly logical conclusion, requiring no faith whatsoever.
Science doesn't say anything. People do.
You need faith to take "sceintific" discoveries at value. Saying it requires no faith whatsoever is quite humorous.
Science will let you down. It will do so time after time, but you'll still have faith in it. You have faith in it every time you buy medication, every time you fertilize your lawn, every time you do anything. You just pretend it's fact because you don't realize just how little people (including scientists) know about those things.
The number of scientific discoveries that have been disproven by science greatly outweigh the number of real discoveries regarding our origin. The number of errors and false interpretations will continue to grow and people will continue to insist that they weren't really wrong to believe the old things because that was the smart thing to do.
The very fact that people, right here, right now, fail to concept the complexity of life and think that science has demonstrated that magically this all happened as a matter of coincidence are people that aren't using logic.
I grew up being taught creationism. To date, there hasn't been a scientific discovery that fundamentally disproves it. I've seen nothing from science that can explain the presence of the spleen in the human body nor the advanced digestive system of birds. I've seen nothing from science that can explain how so many vastly different types of life exist. The survival of the fittest would actually spell the extinction of life, not the evolution of it. That is what is fundamentally misunderstood by so many. I like the phrase "reverse evolution" alot better.
-
"Science has not produced theories thrawn. It is a tool. People produce theories." - Deja
"Science doesn't say anything. People do. " - Deja
What the hell does that mean?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Eggs don't assemble themselves into an omlette, people assemble them into an omlette.
What a joke of a meaningless distraction.
You want yer kid's science class replaced by ID? Sign up now - right here.
Here's the pen, Deja.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Science doesn't say anything. People do.
You need faith to take "sceintific" discoveries at value. Saying it requires no faith whatsoever is quite humorous.
Science will let you down. It will do so time after time, but you'll still have faith in it. You have faith in it every time you buy medication, every time you fertilize your lawn, every time you do anything. You just pretend it's fact because you don't realize just how little people (including scientists) know about those things.
The number of scientific discoveries that have been disproven by science greatly outweigh the number of real discoveries regarding our origin. The number of errors and false interpretations will continue to grow and people will continue to insist that they weren't really wrong to believe the old things because that was the smart thing to do.
The very fact that people, right here, right now, fail to concept the complexity of life and think that science has demonstrated that magically this all happened as a matter of coincidence are people that aren't using logic.
I grew up being taught creationism. To date, there hasn't been a scientific discovery that fundamentally disproves it. I've seen nothing from science that can explain the presence of the spleen in the human body nor the advanced digestive system of birds. I've seen nothing from science that can explain how so many vastly different types of life exist. The survival of the fittest would actually spell the extinction of life, not the evolution of it. That is what is fundamentally misunderstood by so many. I like the phrase "reverse evolution" alot better.
Science doesnt let me down. Flawed people using the system of religion to take advantage of their fellow man lets me down.
You absolutely "do not need faith" for science. Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method. Perhaps a refresher is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world.
See the part about "Predictions from these theories are TESTED by experiment". Care to show me where ID has that process? Or creationism? How about their "physical evidence". They have none and thus they are not science and calling them theories or even relating them to science is not only false its a mockery of what science is.
Also, Science has several theories about the origin of life. It is religion that is unable to change its views, even when new information comes to light.
As for the spleen and the birds digestive system, upon what are you basing them being supernaturrally complex or unexplainable?
Your "survival of the fittest" line is almost too much. lol Yes lots of species have went extinct because they were not "the fittest". The "fittest" are called that because they survive and do not go extinct even under the most dire cirumstances. But it also causes evolution of the species that do survive to adapt to the new and changing enviroments/food/etc...
In other words evolution and extinction can both occur from the "survival of the fittest".
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Science doesn't say anything.
>edit>
Science will let you down.
Your statement is self contradictory.
-
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
6. Publish and allow for peer review.
Test and experiment and observe... Not accept with blind faith.
No faith required. As a matter of fact if you have faith of your outcome and do not doubt it, then your results can be skewed, causing you to believe falsehoods. Faith can screw up science.
-
Each and every person does this mcgroin? Is this how you formed your view of how the world originated? Or did you read someone else's writing on it and take their word for it? Maybe you even looked at the scientific evidence and simply knew that it was 100% accurate and there was not conflicting evidence that would have been supressed because it didn't support the original hypothesis.
Science suffers the same fatal flaw as modern day religion. It's about believing in people, not facts. You believe that the people doing publishing these papers and finding this evidence knew what they were doing and published solely for the sake of enlightenment without the cloudly issue of personal gain involved.
Me... I have a hard time believing in the accuracy of science that can't even predict the weather.
-
I hope you don't fly in a plane, then.
But then, I expect that you do.
Hence I find your argument disengenous.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Science suffers the same fatal flaw as modern day religion. It's about believing in people, not facts. You believe that the people doing publishing these papers and finding this evidence knew what they were doing and published solely for the sake of enlightenment without the cloudly issue of personal gain involved.
Me... I have a hard time believing in the accuracy of science that can't even predict the weather.
Have you ever heard of Math? It is not about believing people. Have you ever had a science lab?
You down science because they cant predict weather perfectly, and thus you discredit them. Too bad you don't hold Religion to the same standard.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Is this how you formed your view of how the world originated?
As a matter of fact yes. Now I'm off to Fermilab... See ya
-
Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review. We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.
Engineering uses Relativity in GPS for example. If relavistic corrections were not accounted for the system would be much less accurate than it is. Quantum theory and the Standard Particle Model predicts behaivior on the sub-atomic scale with extreme accuracy.
If there were any question in the accuracy of these theories (which could be more accurately called laws as they are more accurate than Newtons gravitation law) some scientist would find the problem, win the Nobel prize, and assure a wonderful income for the rest of his/her life in Princeton NJ (he could probably be a well paid visiting professor and live Tahiti or Aspen.
-
Hi Holden,
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No, I just think that Intellegent Design is lazy science. Once you answer the question with the answer that "It's Gods will" inquiry stops.
"Why is the sky blue daddy?"
"Intellegent Design, son."
If the son accepts that answer he will not learn of light refraction thru the predominant gasses in the atmosphere.
I was getting confused as to why you keep bringing up this strawman argument, I mean even on the most basic level its falsity should be apparent. The very discovery of light refraction that you believe ID would have prevented was made in the 17th century by a believer in intelligent design, Francesco Grimaldi who was of all things a Jesuit Priest. His work was further refined by the discoveries of men like Johannes Keppler, a protestant believer who started his educational career with Theology at Tubingen. So I'm failing to see how, when most of the scientific discoveries made prior to the 20th century were made by theists not atheists, why you believe further inquiry into ID would actually end all scientific inquiry and effectively spell the death knell to science.
Then it occurred to me that you might actually believe that for theists "God" is merely a superstitious creation to explain away all natural phenomena. In other words, a theist's "science class" would consist of a bunch of half-naked savages squatting around a fire and would go something like this. "Why when rain come, sky go boom and lights flash?" "God angry, he shout, make sky rumble and fire flashes from his eye! next question." etc.
The whole idea not only dismisses all of the history of science, it even overlooks almost every theistic theological system which posits that God primarily works through secondary means not directly. So faced with the question about a blue sky the believer in ID explains to his child about refraction, light waves, dust particles, and so on. The only real difference is that for the theist, the ultimate source of all these laws, principles, phenomena and so on is God rather than the materialists answer of something along the lines of "Chance & Time."
In any event, guys, this will probably be my last post on this subject until Monday as tomorrow is my busiest day of the week.
One final thought, although he doesn't believe in creationism or intelligent design and has been a leading evolutionary scientist for many years, Michael Ruse is currently creating quite a stir with his admission that atheistic evolutionism has unfortunately become essentially a religious faith which will brook no rivals and that this is having a negative effect on science generally. Salon recently published an interview with Ruse (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html) where he talks frankly about this. While I don't agree with Ruse on much, its definitely food for thought and indicates that there is a real problem.
Here's a teaser from the article:
"Ruse has devoted much of his career, first at the University of Guelph in Ontario and more recently at Florida State, to battling the creationist agenda in science and philosophy, in the classroom and the political arena. At the same time, he has become increasingly fascinated with the indistinct borderlands between science and religion. He has leapt to the defense of scientists who profess religious faith, in the face of derision from prominent atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. He has supported Christians and other believers who argue that religious faith and evolutionary science do not necessarily contradict one another, and who have resisted the rising tide of fundamentalism.
In Ruse's 2000 book "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?" he answered the question forcefully in the affirmative, while making clear he wasn't personally a believer. On the other hand, in his 2003 book "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" Ruse answered that question more or less in the negative, politely describing creationism and intelligent design (often simply called I.D.) as intellectual dead ends -- while reasserting that he thought evolutionary thinking could be compatible with theistic religion.
Yet, even in the context of these moderate and nuanced positions and this steadfast rejection of absolutism, Ruse's new book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," comes as something of a surprise. On one level, the book is a fairly standard intellectual history of how the 18th century Enlightenment led to a crisis of faith in the Western world, which led in turn to two responses: a turn toward fundamentalist, evangelical religion on one hand, and a turn toward increasingly non-theistic reason and science on the other. The two forces have effectively been in combat ever since, which carries us up to science textbooks, school prayer, abortion and homosexuality, sacrilegious TV sitcoms, the last two presidential elections and the rest of today's "culture wars."
Above and beyond that, Ruse makes a heretical argument in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that will not endear him to members of his own team. Creationism and evolutionism, he says, are siblings, born of the same historical crisis, and they provide distorted reflections of each other. "The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions," he writes. More explosively, he thinks both are essentially theological in character; they are "rival religious responses to a crisis of faith -- rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies -- pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind."
Ruse is drawing a crucial distinction between evolutionary science, narrowly considered -- which need not have any religious or spiritual consequences -- and evolutionism, the secular, atheistic religion he says often accompanies and enfolds Darwinism. Leading evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse believes, have failed to draw clear distinctions between the two, and have led many to believe that Darwinian science is fatally allied to an arrogant atheism and a hostile caricature of religious belief. In essence, Ruse believes that fundamentalist evolutionists like Dawkins and W.D. Hamilton hold similar beliefs to fundamentalist creationists -- both sides would agree that Darwinism is a "dark theology" that removes ultimate meaning and purpose from the universe and augurs the death of God.
You might say that, in this new book, Ruse is calling for a Reformation within the church of evolutionism. He himself honors the truth claims of science and is "a hell of a lot closer" to atheism than to religious belief. But he thinks evolutionists must purge themselves of reflexive anti-religious fervor, and acknowledge at least the potential validity of the classic Augustinian position that science and theology can never directly contradict one another, since science can only consider nature and God, by definition, is outside nature. Without this consciousness, Ruse suggests, evolutionism is in fact a secular religion, a church without Christ. And if that's what it is, what is it doing in biology class?..."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review. We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.
Engineering uses Relativity in GPS for example. If relavistic corrections were not accounted for the system would be much less accurate than it is. Quantum theory and the Standard Particle Model predicts behaivior on the sub-atomic scale with extreme accuracy.
If there were any question in the accuracy of these theories (which could be more accurately called laws as they are more accurate than Newtons gravitation law) some scientist would find the problem, win the Nobel prize, and assure a wonderful income for the rest of his/her life in Princeton NJ (he could probably be a well paid visiting professor and live Tahiti or Aspen.
Holy...
I've said some (okay sue me, many) outlandish things....
But I don't think I've ever had my nuts held to the fire quite like that.
We've reached the point in the video game where there is this badass thing that you can't get beyond.
Deja.... Tip of the hat and salute. Been nice knowing ya.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain. None. What happened after matter was introduced is another subject all together. Simply dismissing this fundamental issue does not make the problem go away.
This is correct and no one can argue against it. Matter had to either be created or just pop into existance on it's own. Any "science" that ignors this FACT is just ignorant.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey man, my faith in God is probably way stronger than yer average Sunday Church goer.
And I believe in science.
I think my mind is about as open as it could possibly get.
You have a closed mind if you do not accept that our existance could be the resut of a creator rather than chance.
If you limit your outlook, you are no different than the people who insisted that the world is flat.
-
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005
02:24 pm ET
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey
that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to
debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and
attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the
study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like
physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.
[So 62 percent apparently do believe]
Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
[69 percent apparently do believe]
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund
surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36
questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be
less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our
data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe,
[59 percent apparently do believe]
while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76
percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in
some sort of afterlife.
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said
today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not
attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't
believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way
outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of
the participants to try and figure it all out.
http://www.livescience.com/ (http://www.livescience.com/)
Best Regards.
Cement
-
We are all related to man who lived in Asia in 1,415BC
By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 30/09/2004)
Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study.
Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1,415BC.
Although the date may seem relatively recent, researchers say the findings should not come as a surprise.
Anyone trying to trace their family tree soon discovers that the number of direct ancestors doubles every 20 to 30 years. It takes only a few centuries to clock up thousands of direct ancestors.
Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.
They calculated that the ancestor's location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today - while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.
The researchers, led by Dr Steve Olson, stressed that the date was an estimate.
"Nevertheless, our results suggest that the most recent common ancestor for the world's current population lived in the relatively recent past - perhaps within the last few thousand years," he said.
He added: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forest of north and south America and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."
Although some groups of people may have lived in isolation from the rest of the world for hundreds of years, the researchers say no one alive today has been untouched by migration.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk (http://news.telegraph.co.uk)
hummmm
-
593 posts
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71334&highlight=evolution+vs+creation
307 posts
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43354&highlight=evolution+vs+creation
-
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
Great read.
You are kidding yourselves if you think ID is anything but religious. ( Religious fundamentalists funnel huge amounts of $$ to the selling of ID )
They want us to accept that GOD created us in his image as the bible says. This is a religious view not science as of yet.
And of course you can be religious and believe in evolution. The idea that you arent religious if you dont believe in a literal interpretation of the bible is ludicrous.
<Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
Meanwhile, more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder whether the movement’s scientific coherence was beside the point. Intelligent design has come this far by faith>>
-
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
One of the early-birds defending ID was UC Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson, who seems to have completely misunderstood Darwin's theory of natural selection as implying (1) God doesn't exist, (2) natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance, and (3) whatever happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God. None of these beliefs is essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist. Thus, the first of several fallacies committed by ID defenders is the false dilemma. The choice is not either natural selection or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural selection. Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better than natural selection (or intelligent design). The possibilities may not be endless but they are certainly greater than the two considered by ID defenders.
Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.
Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."* Such a desire belies his indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment relevant to determining whether God exists.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Religions job is to explain why something exists.
A religion that trys to explain how something exists is mythology.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review. We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.
Has the nobel prize ever been given to someone that was later revealed to be a fraud? Or... even two people that were later revealed to be a fraud? I mean... peer review should eliminate that possibility... right? It's not like a bunch of scientists would look at something and admit that they don't understand enough of it to say it's wrong. They're too educated for that.
I work with 80 PhDs. They spend most of the day sitting around and scratching their heads at the discoveries they make. Virtually every change we've ever made has failed peer review at virtually every step with only a few people seeing the light and accepting it. "We fear change" is a constant in the scientific community. Peer review or not.
Peer review is one of the downfalls. It forces a group of people to defend themselves and their prior decisions as a group. That's very unfortunate.
Or... maybe you think the common sniping that occurs between professors is peer review? It's not like they are petty and vindictive. That's not how an educated person would behave... right?
This nobility and accuracy that you seem to believe exists in science is a sham. There are things that are done right, but very few of them. Even fewer where there's not significant room for improvement.
Theories are not based on science. They're based on belief. Science is merely a way to collect data. Scientists will use data to support their beliefs in the classic fashion. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.
-
PS mcgroin: how much error is there in GPS systems right now? Just because people can't figure out how to make them better, doesn't mean they're perfect. It highlights that science will always let us down when it comes to explaining every detail.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
PS mcgroin: how much error is there in GPS systems right now? Just because people can't figure out how to make them better, doesn't mean they're perfect. It highlights that science will always let us down when it comes to explaining every detail.
or that sience has not gotten there YET
-
What proof is there that God exists?
What proof is there that God created the Universe?
-
What right has a religion to question science who's god and bible is based on icons borrowed from other religions, which preaches the fairy tale story of christ, who's basis for worship is a book of selected short stories contrived by a committee?
-
I haven't read the entire thread, but as a student of geosciences, involving biological, paleontological and paleoecological studies it's quite hard not to believe in evolutionary concepts. They just work too well in explaining earth's past and the proof seems to be everywhere.
Anyway, I don't think this totally denies creation. To me it seems just as valid to believe in some higher deity sparking the big bang and thus starting it all from there as it seems valid to rather believe in absurd mathematical and physical impossibilities that somehow created matter out of nothing and caused the bang. Both involves quite a lot of faith.
-
Gregory Mendel - by painstaking research adduced the laws of genetic inheritance, called the "Father of Genetics," was a Catholic monk who published his results at his nearest Naturalist society, and that within a few years of Darwin's Origin. Belief in God per se is not anti-science.
I grew up a naturalist, and held such views during the time I was in military electronics schools for more than a year - eight hours a day, five days a week, and top of the class. I was trained to support airborne fire-control radar for radar-guided air to air missiles. The radar I supported was not the sole result of random natural processes. Intelligent designers and a lot of defense cash produced those complex systems. I don't know who those intelligent designers were, what they looked like, where they were from, nothing about them except that they intelligently used engineering skills to design and produce the radar.
At this very moment, each one of you is making use of a highly sophisticated vision system:
• automated positioning of head and eyes for optimum viewing of the target area
• automated angular slaving solution for both eyes, according to range, for optimum binocular viewing of the target area
• automated iris adjustment to control light input to the eyes
• automated lens control (if you are under 40 hehe) for optimum image sharpness on the retina
• automated conversion of light waves into bio-electrical information to be sent to the brain
• automated deciphering capability to decode these squiggly black symbols
• automated processes to decode the symbols into profound messages
The human vision system is at least as complex as the radar system I supported, and the decipher-encipher capability riding on the vision system is far, far more complex.
Every quarterback who can toss a football is using bio-electrical-mechanical systems, and programming, not unlike the collision course fire-control radar system I supported. The QB locks on to a target long enough to solve a ballistic collision-course problem (including windage if he's any good), automated bio-electrical systems control muscular power output for the collision-course firing solution, and the ball is launched to a place where the tracked target is calculated to arrive simultaneously. Random events produced this complex guidance system? Folks, believe whatever you want. I'd say at the very minimum the universe is the result of some Anthropological Principle.
None of you have ever met me. I imagine that all of you reading this post believe I am a real person (whether you think I am an "intelligent being" or not, hehe). I doubt if any of you believe a fortuitous combination of random EMF signals produced this simple message you are reading. So, there are people who look at the genetic code who do not believe its complexity can be explained by random events.
"Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,"
Ruled the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/LG0B3BI8.pdf (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/LG0B3BI8.pdf)
pgs 2-9
Regards,
Cement
-
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/13705_tunguska.html
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html
Pravda (translated 'the truth') is the main news source down there.
In addition, if someone doesn't accept darwinian theory of evolution, do they necessary have to believe in creationism or perhaps seek a better and more accurate theory?
We're talking relative physics vs quantum science instead of physics vs religion most likely.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I grew up being taught creationism. To date, there hasn't been a scientific discovery that fundamentally disproves it.
And there never will be. You can’t disprove creationism – it’s religion, not science.
That same for intelligent design. It’s religion (“God did itâ€) gussied up as science in an effort to get it taught in schools. In other words, it’s a political strategy, despite what it’s proponents want you to believe. You can put a hat on a hog but it’s still a hog.
Originally posted by Mini D
I've seen nothing from science that can explain the presence of the spleen in the human body nor the advanced digestive system of birds. I've seen nothing from science that can explain how so many vastly different types of life exist.
Then you don’t understand evolution. That’s fine; I don’t understand how computers work. But the fact that we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
There is no “crisis†in the theory of evolution among those that work in the field. There is more data supporting evolution than any other scientific theory today. (Realize the origin of the universe is outside the realm of biologic evolution.)
-
A few points, I'll try and keep it short.
Evolution does not preclude the existence of God. In fact in many ways it is a brilliant not to say an 'intelligent design' method. So a fan of evolution or a scientist can see the hand of God in it's processes. God may very well have created the universe and life on Earth. Evolution is a method he could use to maintain life in all it's variation and vitality.
Creationism is a product of the bible. The problem with many Christian groups is their undying faith in the infallability of the bible. They oppose evolution not because it may disprove the existence of God but that it might disprove a single chapter of the bible, Genesis. If one chapter of the bible is merely a fable a shadow is cast on the entire bible and by definition their entire faith.
Seagoon I suspect, bases his entire faith on the contents and truth of the bible. Thus evolution is an anathema.
Other Christians for whom the bible is inspirational rather than the entire truth have no trouble with evolution.
I would agree that many evolutionists defend the evolutionary theory as if it was a tenet of faith. In fact this is largely a result of consistent and ongoing attacks on evolutionary theory virtually since the day Darwin published his book. In fact evolution is one of the few sciences that conflict directly with the religion. Or more to the point as I said above, the bible. Even today people are trying to give creationism equal time in classrooms even though creationism is religion not science and properly belongs in religious classes.
Religious opponents of evolution seize on apparent differences between scientists as evidence that the theory is false. Nothing could be further from truth. Science advances because of people who question the status quo and then attempt to prove it. That is how science works. Take what you know, work on it, make it better.
Religion operates on the basis of certainty. Science cannot.
One point on creationism. It contradicts itself. God apparently created the Earth in seven days. How is that possible when the days could not have existed before the Earth was created? Isn't that a paradox?
I always wonder at the logic of creationists. They dismiss evolution but they offer up instead. 'The entire universe created in a week by a supernatural being.' :rofl
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The standard model of particle physics brought forth by quantum theory can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
General relativity can be experimentally measured and mathematically predicted.
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.
Physicists on search for matter
BY DANIEL CONOVER
Of The Post and Courier Staff
About a year ago, I taped a cartoon to my computer monitor: Two scientists in lab coats are looking at a third scientist, who stands in a bizarre pose before a blackboard filled with equations.
Says the first scientist to the second, "At some point his theory becomes so abstract, it can only be conveyed using interpretive dance."
All three are clearly physicists.
Physics is an easy science to love, at least from a distance. In physics, you observe the world and test it for underlying principles.
When done successfully, some aspect of the physical world emerges on paper via the clean, logical language of mathematics. Physics lacks the messiness of biology while offering a level of real-world practicality that advanced mathematics can never hope to match.
Or it used to. Physics waved goodbye to standard conceptions of real-world practicality back in the early 20th century, heading off in two radically different directions more or less simultaneously. Albert Einstein led one group in search of The Very Big Stuff with his general and special theories of relativity; meanwhile, a group of scientists who lacked Einstein's star quality went poking around for clues to explain The Very Small Stuff, proposing theories that collectively came to be known as quantum physics.
At their most basic levels, quantum physics attempts to explain the structure of the cosmos, while relativistic physics tries to understand how that structure behaves and interacts. Each theory matches up well with the subject it attempts to describe, but there's a catch: The math that works so well in predicting The Very Big Stuff completely falls apart when applied to The Very Small Stuff, and vice versa.
In other words, both cannot be correct.
Physicists covet elegant ideas, yet the deeper they delve into the quantum world, the more abstract their theories become. They haven't resorted to interpretive dance yet, but quantum reality is so strange that the English language struggles to encompass it.
Which is why the recent "failure" to find Theta-plus, the elusive pentaquark, was actually a profoundly provocative moment -- and potentially of far greater significance than any "success" would have been.
In the early 21st century, we "know" of two types of matter: particles made up of two quarks and particles made up of three quarks. Everything we see and observe and hold is constructed of these two- and three-quark aggregates.
But because the theory that explains how these quarks stick together also predicts the existence of a third type of matter, a particle constructed of five quarks, the search for the pentaquark is ultimately a test of that theory's validity.
Back in March 2004, a group of physicists who called themselves "the CLAS collaboration" (an arcane acronym that includes an arcane acronym, so let's just move on) went to Virginia to confirm or disprove claims that pentaquarks had been observed in the aftermath of high-energy experiments around the world.
One does such things by slamming tiny particles into each other and studying their debris, which sensors record as a spectrum of energy. The CLAS physicists focused on the part of that spectrum (or "channel") where the earlier teams had noticed a tantalizing bump, and they did so with more accurate equipment.
Had University of South Carolina physicist David Tedeschi and his CLAS colleagues confirmed those earlier findings, then the quantum theory that governs something called "the strong force" would have been boosted another notch. Physicists would celebrate an achievement, but here's the irony: Such "discoveries" sometimes are anticlimactic.
As physicist Dan Carman of Ohio University explains it, "because the theory allows for the pentaquark, that means that the pentaquark must exist." Or else. Ultimately, the pentaquark isn't just some quantum curiosity: It's a predicted outcome of a currently accepted theory, and if the pentaquark doesn't exist, then the theory must be re-examined.
That's actually an exciting prospect. When evidence demands the re-examination of an accepted theory, it's often because the original version has overlooked something important -- and therein lie breakthroughs.
This is not to say that the search for the pentaquark is over, or that Theta-plus doesn't exist. One can never "prove" a negative, and even if this experiment didn't isolate Theta-plus, what's to say the next one won't find it lurking in a different "channel"? Besides, Tedeschi still is analyzing one of the 2004 data sets. He won't close the book on his search until late summer.
The conventions of journalism often create the wrong impressions about science. When a scientist says that an experiment "failed to produce" a particular result, he's not saying "the experiment was a failure." Tedeschi put it this way: He's not responsible for the outcome of an experiment, he's responsible for its integrity. Sometimes, the most valuable answer science can give us is "no."
Would a pentaquark change your life? Probably not. But what if its absence leads to a new theory, one that changes our understanding of why stuff sticks together? Like a piece of evidence that should have been at a crime scene, what if this particular "failure" redirects physicists toward an idea that proves to be far more elegant?
Now that would be a result to celebrate, perhaps with verse from some future physicist poet:
All praise the
mysterious pentaquark;
the quantum dog
that would not bark.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
His work was further refined by the discoveries of men like Johannes Keppler, a protestant believer who started his educational career with Theology at Tubingen. So I'm failing to see how, when most of the scientific discoveries made prior to the 20th century were made by theists not atheists, why you believe further inquiry into ID would actually end all scientific inquiry and effectively spell the death knell to science.
Hey Seagoon:
I am not opposed to scientists having faith in the divine, it is just that ID is not science. ID cannot be shown to exist using scientific principles. Good science begins with raw data, building an explanation from that data and testing the explanation. If you start out with a preconcieved notion then you can unknowingly overlook data that is in opposition to the preconception.
When Kepler followed the scientific method he explained planetary motion, thereby, becoming founder of celestial mechanics and the first natural laws in the modern sense; being universal, verifiable, and precise.
When Kepler tried to prove divine guidance in the orbits of the planets using platonic solids and musical interpretations he wasted decades.
Oh and Mini D, the Piltdown Man is one of the greatest examples of fraud in the history of science. Looking for the missing link in human evolution, the scientific community accepted more or less on faith that the "fossils" found in the UK were what everyone expected and therefore were true.
30 or 40 years later, someone decided to look more closely at the fossils and found organic material on the samples, indicating a modern origin... this showed the fraud.
Verifiable experimentation, testing, measurement... ie science found the fraud. The fact that science was not done on the Piltdown Man samples and the samples were taken on faith is what perpetuated the fraud.
-
Originally posted by myelo
And there never will be. You can’t disprove creationism – it’s religion, not science.
That same for intelligent design. It’s religion (“God did itâ€) gussied up as science in an effort to get it taught in schools. In other words, it’s a political strategy, despite what it’s proponents want you to believe. You can put a hat on a hog but it’s still a hog.
Woa... now you go to the religion card. I get that... it's an easy out. The problem is that evolution has become every bit the religion that creationism is.
This is what seems to be the fundamental issue here. Someone dedicated to fighting the christian agenda is someone dedicated to his own agenda.
A committee dedicated to ensuring science is the focus, not some religious mumbo-jumbo is no different than a board of cardinals that is ensuring the beliefs aren't counter to the church's. All they need is a pope and everything would be stupendous.
Then you don’t understand evolution. That’s fine; I don’t understand how computers work. But the fact that we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I don't understand evolution? ROTFLMAO! What the hell do you undestand about it?
I understand that the simultaneous evolution of litterally billions of species over billions of years should mean that we are still seeing it happen. Given the rate at which positive mutation occurs. That is not possible in the current evolutionary model. But it's dismissed because of everything they don't know. This is the magical portion you are so willing to accept on the faith of scientists that know alot less than they're willing to admit. It reminds me of something called the dark ages where you blindly accepted everything from a certain sect believing that they were completely honest with their revelations.
There is no “crisis†in the theory of evolution among those that work in the field. There is more data supporting evolution than any other scientific theory today. (Realize the origin of the universe is outside the realm of biologic evolution.)
Actually, this is where you are quite wrong. There is data supporting numerous species throughout history. There's none that adequately explains the booming transition. Absolutely none. Someone finds a single fostle of something that looks like it might have feathers and they call it the missing link between birds and reptiles. It's widely accepted because it fills a hole in a theory. The end. No knowing if they were really feathers. No knowing what the bone structure of the animal was like. No explaining how birds developed hollow bone structure, advanced tendon systems, advanced digestive systems, rapid incubation systems and so on... all making flight possible... the absence of any one of them making it virtually impossible.
I work extensively in the science field. I have scientific patents. I've worked for 3 years on a project where I do believe we were the leaders in the world on development. IBM came out with an announcement in regards to the material we were working with on how they were going to impliment it in a new manufacturing process. We laughed pretty hard and had considerable data as to the problems with the material, but were silenced because IBM had made the announcement and they obviously had made some magical discovery that blew all of our data out of the water. There wasn't nearly the fanfare when IBM admitted they couldn't get it to work and withdrew it from their process.
Money for projects comes from corperations, interested parties and is directed through school boards. You cannot tell me there is no agenda there. You cannot tell me that this method ensures that you only see accurate scientific discoveries. It's just not possible given the scource.
If Intel wants to do research on the impacts of manufacturing factories on the environment, they'll give a school 100 million to do it and then tell them not to come within 25 miles of one of their factories. That's typical in science these days. Schools are more than willing to ablige because when it comes down to it, you keep the originator of the grant happy.
Of course, there aren't any agendas in the secular schools either. There isn't an insistance that text books should be void of religious refference, accurate or not. There isn't a preference that text books reflect specific PC view points. Nah. That just doesn't happen.
It makes me wonder how my brother-in-law, who isn't even a scientist (historian - PhD) is so popular right now. You see, he writes books about the impact of collonialism on the environment. Only he doesn't view it in an invasive way, he views it from a distance watching actual cause and effect. It's a very non-scientific manner with one glaring exception: It's completely imperical. His books are being widely accepted now for a rather odd reason: he hates women. He hates the mother nature aspect of most books on the subject and the "man is the violator" tone of most literature. He's finding that many universities are starting to hop on board and welcome his books with open arms as a refreshing change to a subject that had gone stale due to agenda. Of course, they replace one agenda with another, but that's science.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So dismissing the issue of who made God is okay?
Science says "I don't know, but I'll continue to investigate" a perfectly logical conclusion, requiring no faith whatsoever.
Being open to the possibilty that a higher intelligence may have created everything does not require faith.
Faith is a good word, because some science was taken as fact.......by what could only have been faith in the flawed science.
Asking who made God is fine, not out of bounds at all. I don't think it's something humans can comprehend......just like humans cannot comprehend where matter came from, in my opinon.
We do know that matter exists, and asking where it came from is a fundemental question to find and answer to, but I doubt we ever will.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
We do know that matter exists,
Do we? (topic for a new thread)
Seriously being open is fine...
If you have faith in science you are not practicing science. You can trust that scientists have done their work and if you do not trust it you can review their work: you can perform the same experiments to satisfy yourself.
Faith requires you to accept dogma. Paraphrasing (IIRC) Matthew it says 'Blessed are those who believe and yet do not see.' Thomas the Apostle had a crisis of faith… It was not until he saw the resurrected Christ that he started to believe once again… Jesus told him "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Science requires doubt. Science requires us to see, hear, detect in some manner, measure, hypothesize, test.... ID requires us to say that we cannot see any other way than the hand of the creator. A hypothesis that cannot be seen, measured, tested, etc.
ID has as it's underpinning the existence of God. This is at the present time been found impossible to prove logically.
ID is not science.
-
Holden, even if ID has it's underpinnings in god, that should not rule out science in any way.
I believe in God by faith, but that doesn't mean that I think science is not compatible with my beliefs.
Ruly anything out is just not the answer to me.
-
DELETED
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
BTW... you're going agenda on me mcgroin. Is it only creationists that were frauds? Or is that what you'd like people to believe.
I bet if you looked, just a little bit, you'd find there were even bigger frauds in science. People that made claims that were falsified, received a nobel prize, and were later revealed to be frauds whos motive was to make money off of the components they said were necessary for the experiments. Look just a little bit. Look and see how well peer review caught that.
-
Did you read my post about the Piltdown fraud?
How were the frauds of Piltdown and those of which you surmise later revealed?
By the practice of good science.
-
Doh... misread the first part.
Science managed to catch up with the fraud, eventually. It was ran by peers and passed. It was accepted as true because that's what people wanted to believe at the time.
Science did not reveal it to be false. A scientist did. If that scientist had not, the rest would have been fine with it. Science is not an absolute. It is not exact. It is a tool of people wishing to accomplish something. The only thing that makes it helpfull is that generally, humans are petty and vindictive. The desire to prove someone wrong in hopes of self promotion is a primary goal. Science is not the key... it is the tool for this. You are relying on the human interface to make it happen.
Of course, it's also a situation where someone was actally able to double check. That is not, even remotely, always the case. There are examples of fraud were science was unable to catch it, but rather criminal investigation succeded. If you look, you'll find it.
You are taking, on faith, that both intentions and dilligence were excercised with 90% of what you believe science has explained. This is not an absolute truth. It is a belief in both men and the unkown. If you can explain to me how this is not some cultist religion I'd be very interested in hearing it. Afterall, we are talking about creationism and evolution in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I understand that the simultaneous evolution of litterally billions of species over billions of years should mean that we are still seeing it happen. Given the rate at which positive mutation occurs.
Bacteria resistant to various antibiotics, insects resistant to pesticides, corn with increased sugar content, new dog breeds on a yearly basis….if anyone (not you specifically mini) doesn’t see evolution occurring either they aren’t looking or they don’t understand what evolution is -- any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Now before you say those don’t count (they do) because these aren’t resulting in new species, speciation has also been documented in a number of cases, with just one example being formation of several new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago (Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348)
Of course what you don’t see occurring is one species immediately changing into a substantially different species, say a reptile turning into a bird. But evolution doesn't predict anything even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever saw a reptile turn into a bird, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
As for the charge that I’m attacking religion, I’m not. Evolution is consistent with many religious views, although certainly not a literal interpretation of Genesis or certain other sacred texts. As for the Bible literalists, I would only ask that they be honest and criticize evolution on a religious basis (as Seagoon has), not try to push pseudoscience as a scientific criticism of evolution as the ID proponents try to do.
-
People who believe in creationism will love any credibility gained through ID. Anti- creationists will hate ID. But those arent the questions.
Question is, can natural selection (which is what you're actually describing, myelo -- the PROCESS by which evolution is believed to occur, not evolution itself) alone be sufficient to explain ALL the things we observe in nature. The scientific method, as strictly described by others here, is about confirming or disproving hypotheses that can be observed NOW. We can describe what's in the dirt, and we can contruct theories to explain our findings ---
---BUT----
we cannot perform experiments to confirm the theories because we cannot recreate one time events, and an incredible number of environmental variables are simply unknown. Theories of orgins are tested by the accumulation of new information, not by experimentation, so in that sense those theories are closer to historical interpretations than, say, the directly testable Theory of Relativity.
What started this thread was the Smithsonian's expulsion of an apparently non-creationist scientist (quote from Washington Post: "Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider.""who allowed a paper to be published that suggested that the accumulated evidence could not be explained by randomness and natural selection. His academic freedom of thought was suppressed because as editor HE JUST ALLOWED THE PUBLICATION OF A PAPER with nontraditional ideas that were unacdeptable to the majority.
When that fraudulent native american professor was exposed, his academic compatriots rose up in his defense by saying that his academic freedom was being compromised. That guy lied on his resume, and in most jobs you'd be out on your ear for that alone.
Oddly enough, there seems to be little such academic loyalty for the Snithsonian scientist...
-
Seagoon, I still maintain ID is laziness. Absolutely true that investigation would continue, that reasearch using our knowledge to date would move forward, but the really big things would be abandoned.
Reading the passages that Hang put up from Einstein you realise that there was a man who understood the part his life could play in existance. That the complexity of the universe and life is too great for any one man to understand and that his spirituality came from wondering at this complexity - yet he did not ascribe any answer to it's existance or formation he just accepted it was there and drew pleasure from it. His joy came from trying to understand any small piece of it.
These pieces are what pass from generation to generation.
Reading this thread all sides of the arguement seem to want to declare the answer to "Life the Unviverse and Everything" here and now in our life times ( I know , 42! ) . Whether it be Creationist, ID or Darwinian we are locked in to this modern day view of gratification NOW. We have the answer NOW! Why can't we accept the answer may take thousands or tens of thousands of years, or we may kill ourselves first, and that in the interest of future generations it is our responsibility NOT to cast judgement on what is truth now but to continue to find small pieces as Einstein did.
ID may not be lazy for us today in that sceintists will not go to work tomorrow but watch TV instead, but it is taking the easy route in the quest for knowledge as a race.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Science did not reveal it to be false. A scientist did.
And the scientist used what to prove it false...voodoo?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Holden,
I was getting confused as to why you keep bringing up this strawman argument, I mean even on the most basic level its falsity should be apparent. The very discovery of light refraction that you believe ID would have prevented was made in the 17th century by a believer in intelligent design, Francesco Grimaldi who was of all things a Jesuit Priest. His work was further refined by the discoveries of men like Johannes Keppler, a protestant believer who started his educational career with Theology at Tubingen. So I'm failing to see how, when most of the scientific discoveries made prior to the 20th century were made by theists not atheists, why you believe further inquiry into ID would actually end all scientific inquiry and effectively spell the death knell to science.
Then it occurred to me that you might actually believe that for theists "God" is merely a superstitious creation to explain away all natural phenomena. In other words, a theist's "science class" would consist of a bunch of half-naked savages squatting around a fire and would go something like this. "Why when rain come, sky go boom and lights flash?" "God angry, he shout, make sky rumble and fire flashes from his eye! next question." etc.
The whole idea not only dismisses all of the history of science, it even overlooks almost every theistic theological system which posits that God primarily works through secondary means not directly. So faced with the question about a blue sky the believer in ID explains to his child about refraction, light waves, dust particles, and so on. The only real difference is that for the theist, the ultimate source of all these laws, principles, phenomena and so on is God rather than the materialists answer of something along the lines of "Chance & Time."
In any event, guys, this will probably be my last post on this subject until Monday as tomorrow is my busiest day of the week.
One final thought, although he doesn't believe in creationism or intelligent design and has been a leading evolutionary scientist for many years, Michael Ruse is currently creating quite a stir with his admission that atheistic evolutionism has unfortunately become essentially a religious faith which will brook no rivals and that this is having a negative effect on science generally. Salon recently published an interview with Ruse (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html) where he talks frankly about this. While I don't agree with Ruse on much, its definitely food for thought and indicates that there is a real problem.
Here's a teaser from the article:
"Ruse has devoted much of his career, first at the University of Guelph in Ontario and more recently at Florida State, to battling the creationist agenda in science and philosophy, in the classroom and the political arena. At the same time, he has become increasingly fascinated with the indistinct borderlands between science and religion. He has leapt to the defense of scientists who profess religious faith, in the face of derision from prominent atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. He has supported Christians and other believers who argue that religious faith and evolutionary science do not necessarily contradict one another, and who have resisted the rising tide of fundamentalism.
In Ruse's 2000 book "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?" he answered the question forcefully in the affirmative, while making clear he wasn't personally a believer. On the other hand, in his 2003 book "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" Ruse answered that question more or less in the negative, politely describing creationism and intelligent design (often simply called I.D.) as intellectual dead ends -- while reasserting that he thought evolutionary thinking could be compatible with theistic religion.
Yet, even in the context of these moderate and nuanced positions and this steadfast rejection of absolutism, Ruse's new book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," comes as something of a surprise. On one level, the book is a fairly standard intellectual history of how the 18th century Enlightenment led to a crisis of faith in the Western world, which led in turn to two responses: a turn toward fundamentalist, evangelical religion on one hand, and a turn toward increasingly non-theistic reason and science on the other. The two forces have effectively been in combat ever since, which carries us up to science textbooks, school prayer, abortion and homosexuality, sacrilegious TV sitcoms, the last two presidential elections and the rest of today's "culture wars."
Above and beyond that, Ruse makes a heretical argument in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that will not endear him to members of his own team. Creationism and evolutionism, he says, are siblings, born of the same historical crisis, and they provide distorted reflections of each other. "The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions," he writes. More explosively, he thinks both are essentially theological in character; they are "rival religious responses to a crisis of faith -- rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies -- pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind."
Ruse is drawing a crucial distinction between evolutionary science, narrowly considered -- which need not have any religious or spiritual consequences -- and evolutionism, the secular, atheistic religion he says often accompanies and enfolds Darwinism. Leading evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse believes, have failed to draw clear distinctions between the two, and have led many to believe that Darwinian science is fatally allied to an arrogant atheism and a hostile caricature of religious belief. In essence, Ruse believes that fundamentalist evolutionists like Dawkins and W.D. Hamilton hold similar beliefs to fundamentalist creationists -- both sides would agree that Darwinism is a "dark theology" that removes ultimate meaning and purpose from the universe and augurs the death of God.
You might say that, in this new book, Ruse is calling for a Reformation within the church of evolutionism. He himself honors the truth claims of science and is "a hell of a lot closer" to atheism than to religious belief. But he thinks evolutionists must purge themselves of reflexive anti-religious fervor, and acknowledge at least the potential validity of the classic Augustinian position that science and theology can never directly contradict one another, since science can only consider nature and God, by definition, is outside nature. Without this consciousness, Ruse suggests, evolutionism is in fact a secular religion, a church without Christ. And if that's what it is, what is it doing in biology class?..."
- SEAGOON
Perhaps you could point to me exactly what you would want taught for ID? Which version? Whose God? ID belongs in a history/religion class. Even if I was religious I would not trust public school teachers to teach my children about religion, and if you are already religious then your kids know about god. So really this is about trying to use the schools as a recruitement center for religion and I won't stand for it, and neither should you.
I would like to know what you want taught. This question never gets asked and I thinks it critical.
-
Hi Raider,
Originally posted by Raider179
Perhaps you could point to me exactly what you would want taught for ID? Which version? Whose God? ID belongs in a history/religion class. Even if I was religious I would not trust public school teachers to teach my children about religion, and if you are already religious then your kids know about god. So really this is about trying to use the schools as a recruitement center for religion and I won't stand for it, and neither should you.
I would like to know what you want taught. This question never gets asked and I thinks it critical.
I'm not an ID advocate, and ID is certainly NOT Christian theology. I wouldn't want ID taught in a competent Christian theology class, because it has no basis whatsoever in the bible. It is the result of observations and theories generated in the lab, not biblical exegesis. In fact, very, very, few ID advocates are evangelicals as ID assumes several things that most evangelicals reject, such as the presumption that the earth is billions of years old, and I've never yet met a thoroughgoing ID advocate who embraced six day creation as taught in Genesis. Most IDers take the scientific data as their starting point, but conclude that the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis cannot explain it.
As far as teaching it goes, what they want to do is simply be able to show the evidence that stands against the theory of Darwinian evolution, point out the debunked theories in existing textbooks, and to present material in much the same fashion that XrightyX has been doing. What they are against is presenting Evolutionism as an unshakeable dogma to be accepted and believed by all those who do not wish to be ostracized, caricatured, and ridiculed by society. What they want is the ability to present material for AND against Evolutionism in a neutral fashion.
Here's an article written by Doug Cowan, a High School teacher already teaching ID in a public school, explaining his teaching methodology. Go ahead and tell me what you object to:
------------------------------------------
"I am a public high school biology teacher, and I do an unusual thing. I teach my students more than they have to know about evolution. I push them to behave like competent jurors - not just to swallow what some authority figure tells them to believe - not even me - but rather to critically analyze, with an open mind, the evidence set before them.
Scientific theories have come and gone for centuries, replaced by better ones as new evidence arises. There has always been controversy in science and tremendous opposition to those who challenge the orthodoxy of the day. An effective way to teach science is to explore some of these controversies.
Teenagers, not surprisingly, find this approach exhilarating.
When I note that contrary to their large and monolithic biology textbook, some highly credentialed scientists insist that there are limitations to Darwin's theory, the students perk up.
And when I note that some current biology textbooks contain widely discredited evidence for Neo-Darwinism - a synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics - the last of the sleepy looks in the classroom usually vanishes.
Skepticism for its own sake isn't the goal here, but it's important for students to realize that even respected scientists have peddled fraudulent evidence in defense of a pet scientific dogma. A few examples my students learn about are Ernst Haeckel's faked embryo drawingsand the infamous Piltdown Man - fossils of a primitive hominid that turned out to be a hoax.
I also expose students to the reputable evidence for evolution. They learn about some of the pillars of evolutionary theory - genetically altered fruit flies, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in bugs, how breeding programs change domestic species, and how oscillating climates affect the beak size of certain kinds of finches. These and other examples demonstrate that organisms are capable of change over time.
What is the significance, I ask my students, of these microevolutionary changes? Can they be extrapolated to explain macroevolution - that is, evolution from one type of creature to a fundamentally different kind?
I also dissect these evidences using recent discoveries that have raised important questions among evolutionary biologists.
My students learn that even highly trained biologists disagree on these issues, interpreting "hard" evidence in different ways.
The job of the scientist, I explain, is to find the best explanation to a problem, not just to defend his or her own position at all costs.
After my presentations, many kids will ask what I believe, since they cannot tell what my position is.
One such student told me she appreciated my neutral approach. Her reason was simple: hearing the evidence for and against the theory gave her the freedom to weigh the evidences for herself.
This student eventually wrote an article for our local paper about my approach. After it was published, a reporter from that paper appeared unannounced, interviewed me, and called my superintendent to ask if she knew how I was teaching evolution.
My principal saw that it was a freedom of speech issue and gave me his full backing.
My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so. However, I have retained the freedom to mention intelligent design theory to curious students as another viewpoint used to explain life and its diversity.
The superintendent reminded me to remain neutral in my presentation, and gave me her backing.
We were on firm legal footing. Constitutional law allows this approach:
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to teach students about alternative scientific viewpoints and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.
And a June 2001Senate addendum to The No Child Left Behind Act states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist ...."
Finally, this approach comports with the state of Washington's high school assessment test, which expects students to be able to think critically, analyze information, and draw informed, reasoned conclusions.
Charles Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
That, in my opinion, is what science is all about."
Doug Cowan is a veteran science teacher at Curtis Senior High School in University Place, Wash., where he teaches biology, physiology, and human anatomy.
------------------
- SEAGOON
-
Nonsense!
In fact this is dangerous nonsense. ID is just the latest fad name for creationism and is just the latest version of stick-your-head-in-the-sand religious pseudo-science to come down the pipe. Same idiocy that coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro evolution" (no such thing).
It is religion in general that is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and asking our children to turn off their minds. There is nothing refutable about ID or Creationism. It is based on faith and must by definition leave out all other possibilities. You might as well burn Bruno at the stake again.
-
It would be better if you slammed a gavel down when you said that. Or had someone kiss your ring right afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
...I wouldn't want ID taught in a competent Christian theology class, because it has no basis whatsoever in the bible. It is the result of observations and theories generated in the lab, not biblical exegesis.
...
- SEAGOON [/B]
The reason ID bunko rings true to so many people is because there's subtlety here that many people just don't put forth the effort to grasp.
Seagoons quote here is at the heart of it. ID is NOT, NOT, NOT the result of observations and theories generated in any scientific setting.
ID IS all about jumping to a conclusion based on certain gaps in what can be observed and explained. Huge difference.
Going back to the original articles. Perhaps von Sternberg's treatment was over the top, but the shunning of his premise was valid. It is NOT science to say "evolution theory cannot explain such and such and therefore so and so must be true."
My analogy:
You're walking through a parking lot and come across what you believe to be the sleekest, most stylish, most beautifully designed car on the planet and you've never seen anything like it before. There is no badging of any type. You happen to be a Ford guy, so the lack of any badging to the contrary and the fact that's it's the most beatifull car on the planet confirm to you that it's a Ford. That's religion. Science would say, "Hmm. That's not like any car I've seen before, I wonder who made it."
Evolutionary Science says, "Here's all the things that we can explain scientifically. Here's some things we can't. I wonder how I can set about finding the answers and validating them"
Intellegent Design - by it's very premise - says, "Here's stuff that Evolutionary Science cannot explain. We have an answer for them. We don't need to be able to apply the same science evolution does to their explanations because these are things that are as yet unexplained by science (but we still know the answer).
Bunko science by it's premise.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It would be better if you slammed a gavel down when you said that. Or had someone kiss your ring right afterwards.
Only if the appropriate mood music was playing... Like the 2001 theme.
(I know it is called Thus spake some guy with a 'Z' name)
-
Zarathustra I believe. Nietche.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nonsense!
In fact this is dangerous nonsense. ID is just the latest fad name for creationism and is just the latest version of stick-your-head-in-the-sand religious pseudo-science to come down the pipe. Same idiocy that coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro evolution" (no such thing).
It is religion in general that is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and asking our children to turn off their minds. There is nothing refutable about ID or Creationism. It is based on faith and must by definition leave out all other possibilities. You might as well burn Bruno at the stake again.
In turn your statement saying Faith leaves out all other possibilites, but, science as the alter to it sees all possibilites, is a limiting statement of your definition of science, in that it is limiting "one" possiblility - Faith. After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.
Half of you folks in this thread get down right preachy and protaganistic over this faith thingy. You sure your antagonism isn't giving you a blind spot in your self proclaimed "open" minds? You almost give the impression that you are willing to persecute what, beleivers in Faith? Christians? You guys BBQ'd any christians lately? I bet by now Seagoon is smelling kinda hickory like.....:)
-
Originally posted by bustr
In turn your statement saying Faith leaves out all other possibilites, but, science as the alter to it sees all possibilites, is a limiting statement of your definition of science, in that it is limiting "one" possiblility - Faith. After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.
Half of you folks in this thread get down right preachy and protaganistic over this faith thingy. You sure your antagonism isn't giving you a blind spot in your self proclaimed "open" minds? You almost give the impression that you are willing to persecute what, beleivers in Faith? Christians? You guys BBQ'd any christians lately? I bet by now Seagoon is smelling kinda hickory like.....:)
ID is religion no matter how you slice it.
Seagoon is best smoked with apple wood as hickory gives him a bitter taste.
-
Bustr:
The scientific method requires logical proof. One needs to back up hypothesis with evidence and experiment in order to achieve validity.
The whole basis of ID is that there is a larger cosmic omnipresence pushing things in a certain direction, intellegently. Intellegent Design assumes that there is a Designer.
Presently there is no logical proof of this concept. The best that Neo-Creationists can neo-come up with is that they cannot concieve of a way that the Neo-Darwinian theory of neo-natural selection can neo-explain it.
The lack of a neo-explanation is their neo-proof. This is not evidence or even neo-evidence that ID is a vaild explanation of neo-physical neo-phenomenon.
I have no faith in science, faith is a special concept. I trust that science is showing the way to a better understanding of the way our neo-world neo-works.
Faith is an illogical belief. A belief based entirely without evidence. "Blessed are those who have faith yet do not see"
Jesus himself knew the difference between faith and belief based on experment.
I trust science because I have seen evidence, I have measured results. I have no faith in science, as I needed evidence in order to accept concepts neo-revealed.
-
Originally posted by bustr
After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.
There's no faith involved in the scientific method, which is driven by demonstrable, repeatable results.
You can't have faith in science. You can observe that something works or behaves in a manner that you predict - demonstrating an understanding of it - or that it does not, demonstrating a lack of understanding.
If every time I prayed there was a predictable and demonstrable outcome (other than my own satisfaction), I could apply some science to my religion. As it is, the best I have is that God works in ways impossible for a human understand - eg. Faith.
When we put a satellite into orbit, there's no faith involved. No point where we simply must trust that some mysterious forces we don't understand will get the bugger into space. Through science we know precisely what must happen in order to achieve orbit, and conversely we know exactly the specific orbit that will be achieved by applying a certain ammount of thrust to an eathbound object pointed in a certain direction.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so. However, I have retained the freedom to mention intelligent design theory to curious students as another viewpoint used to explain life and its diversity.
The superintendent reminded me to remain neutral in my presentation, and gave me her backing.
We were on firm legal footing. Constitutional law allows this approach:
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to teach students about alternative scientific viewpoints and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.
And a June 2001Senate addendum to The No Child Left Behind Act states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist ...."
That, in my opinion, is what science is all about."
Doug Cowan is a veteran science teacher at Curtis Senior High School in University Place, Wash., where he teaches biology, physiology, and human anatomy.
------------------
- SEAGOON
1) They already have a process for proving theories wrong and it does not take place in a courtroom or with legislation!
2)Its called the Theory of Evolution for a reason.
3)LoL See the part where he says "My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so." He doesnt teach it. He only offers it if students ask...Big difference...
4)ID is not science and is in no shape or form a "theory". Point to me 1 peice of factual science in ID....
5)No child left behind just got hit with a constitutionality lawsuit in CT. Might be the end of that waste of money.
6)No problem with what this guy is teaching, because he IS NOT teaching intelligent design, he is however teaching the "flaws" of evolution and darwinism which is no problem. What I have a problem with is conjecture and the absolute lack of any proof that ID is anywhere close to a valid subject in science class.
-
Seagoon is obviously highly intelligent. The arguments he puts forward are cogent and plausible. Some of his criticism of evolutionary thought hits home. I can readily admit that evolution has flaws which reputable scientists and others have noted. It is even possible that at some time in the future the 'fact' of evolution will be overturned and replaced with something else.
So it is true of many creationists. Brilliant arguments, clever points and plausible explanations.
I've debated with creationists in other forums and found much the same thing. Highly intelligent people with brilliantly crafted arguments.
BUT
All they can offer as an alternative to evolution is a chapter from a book written thousands of years ago. This book says God created the world in six days. QED.
No argument, no dispute. There is no debate in creationist circles about whether fish were created on the first day or the third. No dispute about which came first horse or donkeys or just how all those cows avoided being eaten by the dinosaurs.
Seagoon, what I want from you is this without sophistry or waffle.
Just how can you with all your intelligence give so much credence to a story which quite obviously was written as a fable by someone who had absolutely no idea how the Earth or the universe came into being?
Would God cease to exist if only one chapter of the bible is proved to be inaccurate?
-
Hi SamIam,
Originally posted by Samiam
There's no faith involved in the scientific method, which is driven by demonstrable, repeatable results.
You can't have faith in science. You can observe that something works or behaves in a manner that you predict - demonstrating an understanding of it - or that it does not, demonstrating a lack of understanding.
Actually, many aspects of science rely on unprovable presupositions and inference.
Let me give you one minor example, the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program.
Seti uses radio telescopes to receive and then analyze electromagnetic signals to determine if any of them contain information. They assume that if they can find this information embedded in radio waves coming to the earth from space, that this would be evidence of intelligent life in the universe. No one in the scientifc community considers this to be a major leap of faith. However, there are actually hundreds of assumptions, presuppositions, and leaps of faith bound up in this program. I'll only discuss a few, first it presupposes that extraterrestrial life is possible on other planets and that biological life-forms would be similar enough to humans to be capable of communicating with them in an intelligible fashion, and so on. But aside from these presuppositions there is the critical assumption that if we received an information bearing message that the most likely explanation for it would be that it had been created by an intelligent life form.
In other words if we received a message which clearly said "Greetings Earth People" we wouldn't immediately dismiss the possibility that an alien intelligence had created it and set about determining how the radio waves formed themselves into such interesting patterns. In other words, we would begin by assuming that it was the result of Intelligent design unless and until it was proved otherwise.
Now in the case of DNA we have infinitely more information encoded than the simple "Greetings Earth People" we have literally millions of pieces of information stored in specifically arranged sequences of nucleotides. The arangement of these nucleotides into complex specific information bearing structures cannot be explained by an appeal to blind chance - even spread over millions of years - as the probability of that is so close to zero as to be statistically irrelevant.
Additionally, chemistry provides us with no "self-ordering properties" that explain it, especially as there are no chemical bonds between the helix and the genetic instructions in the DNA molecule. Any such self-ordering principle would also produce uniformity, as it does in inorganic chemicals, and such uniformity would be disastrous in the DNA molecule which depends on asymetrical and irregular ordering of (A)denine, (T)hymine, (C)ytosine, and (G)uanine in order to produce the vast number of variations that are found in organic life. To use an analogy, just like the message "Greetings Earth People" depends upon specific, non-random and deliberate, ordering in order to convey information so too the DNA molecule depends upon the same factors in order to convey information, and defies a materialistic explanation for this ordering.
The way evolutionism or materialism as faith affects the search for the origin of life is in its blind insistence that an intelligent pattern cannot be the result of intelligent design, because of its faith in the fact that there is no creator. 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). So even though we cannot posit a materialistic explanation for the existence of highly organized information in DNA strands, we must continue to search for one endlessly since we take it on faith that Intelligent Design is impossible.
The SETI researchers should consider themselves blessed that they don't have to operate under the same rules, or their ability to establish the existence of Extraterrestial Intelligence would be rendered absolutely impossible.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
Go bone up on the scientific method. "Presupposing" is called a "Hypothesis". It is a requirement of science not a drawback.
-
The SETI program is nothing but a search, literally. Creationism is not comparable to it by far as it does not search or study, it teaches a highly naive model which repeats in several native cultures on earth. Based on blind faith with no scientific backing whatsoever. Creationists do try to use science like 'devil the bible' by digging up convenient holes in the theories. At the same time they completely ignore the thousandfold amount of data which directly speaks against creationism.
If I had to find a convenient way to explain the beginning of the world to a 3-year old it would be 'Then God created...' :rolleyes:
Of course I'd never do such a damage to my own child.
The assumption that DNA structures would be formed randomly is false. They formed due to smaller, much more probable combinations which linked together as larger structures. The combinations that were not good got killed. Survival of the fittest as is found in nature also today.
Even today genetic alterations create people with different intelligence. It also creates autistic, retarded, down, elephantitis etc. children who generally speaking have a very low chance of reproducing and thus eliminating them from the gene pool. Once in a while the genetic alterations can also hit a jackpot by altering the species in some beneficial way. One such alteration could be a specific resistance to a virus such as bird influenza which currently threatens the lives of billions of people.
Human kind is degrading itself by nurturing genetic disability, let alone let it breed - but that's another discussion.
-
Seagoon,
The faith in the scientific method is, if we plug away long enough on DNA a quantifyable rational explanation will be discovered to the current inexplicable sequences. The scientific method stands us at the threshold of becomeing God ourselves. Why else is SciFi so seductive?
The common dream is a future where we command the forces of the universe ourselves as the result of conquering its secrets via the scientific method. But after all is said on done, what will we have really accomplished?
Being human we will tinker with everything. Possibley extend our physical bodies life span by milleniums. Cure all known diaseses, build transporters, star drives, augment our mental functions by 1000x with implants. But here I am demonstrating faith in the scientific method's eventual conquest of the universe.
In the present using the known and proven methods it is beleif in the scientific method. Beleiving the scientific method will grant us the secrets to the universe in the future is faith in the scientific method.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The way evolutionism or materialism as faith affects the search for the origin of life is in its blind insistence that an intelligent pattern cannot be the result of intelligent design, because of its faith in the fact that there is no creator.
How can you justify this critique of Evolution or more importantly of science in general?
The concluding words of "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
If one makes an outstanding claim, one better have outstanding proof.
In March of 1989, the prospect of table top fusion of deuterium was put forward by respectable scientists of the University of Utah. (Fleishmann and Pons) It was supported by reports from other respectable scientists that they had been able to replicate those findings.
These initial claims, however, were soon met by counterclaims from equally respectable labs and investigators, to the effect that the initial findings could not be replicated.
SETI makes some assumptions, but if they ever get what they think would be a signal, the scientific community (if it behaves scientifically) would attempt to shoot as many holes in it as possible, looking for another explanation.
As an example, there was some speculation that Pulsars were a signal from intellegent life, but with peer review it was ruled out and further investigation showed it to be a natural phenomenon from rotating neutron stars.
Science is seperate from faith. If one mixes faith and science, you screw up both.
-
Because gentelmen you hold your positions on faith that they are the correct position because you each have defined your personal beleif system on your faith in your position.
The scientist who declaires religious faith as so much hoowey because it cannot pass the scientific method test is taking the easy way out. Science has not proven or disproven God. The scientific method is relying on evidence over time to make the final proof. That is faith in the "method" because its a future expectation.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Science has not proven or disproven God. The scientific method is relying on evidence over time to make the final proof. That is faith in the "method" because its a future expectation.
Science cannot 'disprove' God. You are getting closer to understanding.
The trust (not faith) in the method is based on evidence of it working so far and in so many differing applications.
Future expectation is in the behavior of the human practicing the science: the method corrects the behavior because the 'proof' needs to be corroborated by independent scientists who may have conflicting expectations.
-
And now, even Gravity is under attack :rolleyes:
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
TOPEKA, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
-
Not sure if you serious or not but it's funny either way.
The Onion cracks me up.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Science cannot 'disprove' God. You are getting closer to understanding.
The trust (not faith) in the method is based on evidence of it working so far and in so many differing applications.
Future expectation is in the behavior of the human practicing the science: the method corrects the behavior because the 'proof' needs to be corroborated by independent scientists who may have conflicting expectations.
I doubt you will ever convinvce ID/Creationist people about the need for testable evidence and science.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Because gentelmen you hold your positions on faith that they are the correct position because you each have defined your personal beleif system on your faith in your position.
The scientist who declaires religious faith as so much hoowey because it cannot pass the scientific method test is taking the easy way out. Science has not proven or disproven God. The scientific method is relying on evidence over time to make the final proof. That is faith in the "method" because its a future expectation.
OK. Once again, by definition there's no faith involved in the scientific method.
From Websters:
faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Whereas science is exclusively concerned with material evidence and logical proof. You don't have faith in science. You rely on science because it is proven to be able to provide the food you eat, the safe water you drink and the computer networks you play on.
And there are plenty of scientists (real scientists, not ID poseurs) who do not declare religeous faith as hoowey. But they understand that religeous faith is just that and has no business being brought into the science classroom.
As for SETI, Seagoon, you are off base on about a dozen levels. First, there are a lot of scientists who consider SETI as pseudo-science. It is not majorly funded and struggles to stay afloat. Even those who support SETI will be the first to tell you that there's no scientific method in play - it's a hopefull search. (thus the S in SETI). It's not an experiment to test a hypothesis. (Words mean specific things in science and are chosen carefully - like the common misunderstanding of the word "theory" when applied to evolution).
Then you go on to assume what science might make of some message that SETI might receive and draw parallels to real science surrounding DNA. Since you don't have a grasp of what science is about in the first place, your analogy is faulty from the get-go.
-
I'm asking this in all honesty, not as a setup for anything else or to make a point---
Doesnt extrapolation entail increased risk of error, and in that sense require "faith"?
We see a great deal of evidence for natural selection and changes in traits. WE have seen development of variations that scientists have called new species, though our "research definition" of a species may play some role in what is or is not distinct enough speciation.
From this we extrapolate that complete changes in metabolic systems (cold blooded to warm blooded, etc), and some instances changes in teh actual material of inheritance could take place.
That seems to be a very big jump, and when extrapolating there is intrinsic increase in error the farther we get from observed data points.
I'm wondering of that's what some are saying becomes a matter of scientific faith -- that materialists (for want of a better term) are "committed" enough to their belief in mechanistic explanations that other options are immediately discounted.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I'm asking this in all honesty, not as a setup for anything else or to make a point---
Doesnt extrapolation entail increased risk of error, and in that sense require "faith"?
We see a great deal of evidence for natural selection and changes in traits. WE have seen development of variations that scientists have called new species, though our "research definition" of a species may play some role in what is or is not distinct enough speciation.
From this we extrapolate that complete changes in metabolic systems (cold blooded to warm blooded, etc), and some instances changes in teh actual material of inheritance could take place.
That seems to be a very big jump, and when extrapolating there is intrinsic increase in error the farther we get from observed data points.
I'm wondering of that's what some are saying becomes a matter of scientific faith -- that materialists (for want of a better term) are "committed" enough to their belief in mechanistic explanations that other options are immediately discounted.
Science does not extrapolate and then declare a truth. This is exactly what ID consists of and is why it is not science.
A scientist may extrpolate to form a hypothesis. It is then incumbent on the scientist to test the hypothesis, and if he thinks he has shown the hypothesis to be true to submit the results of his test for peer review where the test can be validated and replicated. Only after withstanding this rigor can what was once a hypothesis be generally accepted as true and therefore be introduced into science texts.
As an aside, this is where the media really screws with the public, giving the impression that science is shady. When results of a test that appear to substantiate a particular hypothesis are published, some media pick it up and make it front page news. When peer review and attempts to reproduce the result uncover problems that either disprove the hypothesis or at least bring it into question, we either never hear about it (leaving everybody with the wrong, original belief - eg. silicon breast implants causing disease), or the new result is heavily publicised leaving the impression that some grand mistake was made.
ID is a hypothesis that by its very nature excludes any ability to test it and also by its very nature declares that any desire to test it is contrary to the hypothesis itself. Thus it is NOT science. It's not a matter of opinion. By the long established definition of the scientific method, ID does NOT qualify.
BEWARE: When this ID attempt at pretending that creationism can be cast as science fails, the logical next step is for creationists to attempt to REDEFINE science such that ID (or whatever they are calling it then) fits within a science curriculum.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
BEWARE: When this ID attempt at pretending that creationism can be cast as science fails, the logical next step is for creationists to attempt to REDEFINE science such that ID (or whatever they are calling it then) fits within a science curriculum.
That has actually happenned in at least 1 state already. Cant remember want to say kansas or something but will have to look it up later. BUt agreed with your post. Its futile to explain pure science to some people. ID/Creationists only proof in their "theory" is that their are some inconsistencies in Evolution. That does not constitute anything. We don't know why mass causes gravity so maybe we should also start teaching God created Gravity too :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Sam, thanks for the reply -- but it honestly sounds like you used my comment as more of a starting point than a question to be answered.
What modern study can you do to avoid unverifiable extrapolation back in time?
-
Extrapolation is a prediction of results outside of a data set based upon behavior within the data set.
The farther outside the data set, the more we are prone to error.
Faith is a belief based upon no evidence.
There is evidence of behavior within the data set, so extrapolation is based upon evidence. When one extrapolates, one accepts and notes the error, and says, "these bones are dated to the jurassic period." not "these bones are 63,542,873 years old, the dinosaur died in the spring that year."
-
I think that risk of extermination of the planet by Large Comets, and Meteors certainly undermines if not disproves ID. What kind of intelligent creator makes the universe with Billions and Billions of Loose rocks hurtling around/toward us??? Well there is the flaw in ID/Creationism so it must not be true.:lol
-
It might interest you Mr. Black wanna-bes to know that the possibility of the creation of the universe by intelligent design has been acknowledge by no less a personage than Dr. Allen Guth, University of California at Berkeley. He is the formulator of the almost "universally" accepted "inflationary universe theory" which details the forces that led to the big bang.
In essence, Guth states that the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron. Guth also postulates that this was not a one time event. The presence of the current universe would set in motion events leading to the creation of succeeding universes. Here's the kicker...Guth also speculates that since the amount of space needed to create a universe is so small, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to artificially create the conditions leading to another bing bang.
So you see, you twits, that there are prominent scientists and physicists who will entertain thoughts of intelligent design. Guth is, if memory serves, an agnostic. His thoughts on the possible intelligent design of the universe do not automatically refer to a deity.
In addition, some scientists have come to wonder if perhaps the Cambrian explosion might have been due to the Earth's biosphere having been seeded by outside, read "alien", forces.
Your arguments and protestations to the contrary, you do not appear to be truly open to new ideas.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It might interest you Mr. Black wanna-bes to know that the possibility of the creation of the universe by intelligent design has been acknowledge by no less a personage than Dr. Allen Guth, University of California at Berkeley. He is the formulator of the almost "universally" accepted "inflationary universe theory" which details the forces that led to the big bang.
In essence, Guth states that the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron. Guth also postulates that this was not a one time event. The presence of the current universe would set in motion events leading to the creation of succeeding universes. Here's the kicker...Guth also speculates that since the amount of space needed to create a universe is so small, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to artificially create the conditions leading to another bing bang.
So you see, you twits, that there are prominent scientists and physicists who will entertain thoughts of intelligent design. Guth is, if memory serves, an agnostic. His thoughts on the possible intelligent design of the universe do not automatically refer to a deity.
In addition, some scientists have come to wonder if perhaps the Cambrian explosion might have been due to the Earth's biosphere having been seeded by outside, read "alien", forces.
Your arguments and protestations to the contrary, you do not appear to be truly open to new ideas.
lol "leaving open the posssibility" and "entertaining thoughts" are a just a tad short of what is required by the scientific method. try try again.
-
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.
The tone of your posts suggests that you have completely written off this theory.
Sooo...I take it that your field is not in science?
Hmmmmm.....it seems we have a long way to go before we become the type of advance civilization that Guth speculated about.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.
Again, how do you "investigate" a theory of intelligent design? Please inform us.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.
Absolutely.
Has anyone investigated ID scientifically? I would like to see the evidence. The measurable, verifiable evidence.
The arguments I see talk of inadequacies of Darwin's theory. This is not evidence of ID. This is an argument about inadequacy.
I'm all for evidence. I have no problem discussing evidence in the classroom.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.
The tone of your posts suggests that you have completely written off this theory.
Sooo...I take it that your field is not in science?
Hmmmmm.....it seems we have a long way to go before we become the type of advance civilization that Guth speculated about.
Ok lets assume that your position is correct. (which it is not) What evidence do you suggest the scientist experiments with to prove or disprove the concept of ID? How do you suggest they go about investigating ID? Without evidence of a method to test this supposed "theory" you do not have science. You have history and you have religion and you shouldn't confuse them with science.
ID IS NOT A THEORY. It is Creationism re-worded.
Actually I have experience in a lot of fields, science being one of them. I just finished a minor in anthropology and am finishing up my history major. Read my post or Holden's on the Scientific method and explain to me how ID can be a theory. It meets none of the requirements.
I asked this before and I will ask again, What would you want the teacher to say about ID in the classroom? Do you want the public schools teaching your kids about religion? You might trust them that much to not screw it up but I know I don't.
-
Dr. Guth's musings on the origin of the universe, however fascinating they may be, don't have a lot of bearing on the validity of ID as an alternative to evolution.
Evolution is the scientific theory that best explains how the myriad of complex life forms that exist on planet earth came to be how they are today. This is primarily biology, anthropology and other life sciences. It is something we understand pretty well, to the point where we can contemplate cloning and creating disease resistent crops, and identifying species from their bone fragments.
The origin of the universe is in the realm of astrophysics and deals with many phenomena we can only observe from afar or indirectly through patterns in radiation eminating from space. Speculating about what forces - intelligent or not - brought the universe into being is quite different from having scientific evidence that the story of Gensis is factual as applied to how man came into being.
-
Leviathan,
You raised an interesting question.
How would one go about investigating such a thing?
Surely there would be clues somewhere. What would they be and how would scientists go about searching for them?
A very valid point.
How about this one? Has there ever been a concerted effort made to find such clues? And if there hasn't been a study made...why not?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It might interest you Mr. Black wanna-bes to know that the possibility of the creation of the universe by intelligent design has been acknowledge by no less a personage than Dr. Allen Guth, University of California at Berkeley. He is the formulator of the almost "universally" accepted "inflationary universe theory" which details the forces that led to the big bang.
In essence, Guth states that the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron. Guth also postulates that this was not a one time event. The presence of the current universe would set in motion events leading to the creation of succeeding universes. Here's the kicker...Guth also speculates that since the amount of space needed to create a universe is so small, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to artificially create the conditions leading to another bing bang.
So you see, you twits, that there are prominent scientists and physicists who will entertain thoughts of intelligent design. Guth is, if memory serves, an agnostic. His thoughts on the possible intelligent design of the universe do not automatically refer to a deity.
In addition, some scientists have come to wonder if perhaps the Cambrian explosion might have been due to the Earth's biosphere having been seeded by outside, read "alien", forces.
Your arguments and protestations to the contrary, you do not appear to be truly open to new ideas.
here is what Guth Said in an interview I found.
Guth explains that no one has been able to explain why our universe took the initial state it did: i.e., whether its state was determined or random. Maybe the escape clause is to believe that all possible states exist, and we observe the one that produced observers (the anthropic principle). Guth seems surprisingly warm to this idea that produced a “privileged planet” by chance:
"Another possibility, now widely discussed, is that nothing determines the choice of vacuum for our universe; instead, the observable universe is viewed as a tiny speck within a multiverse that contains every possible type of vacuum. If this point of view is right, then a quantity such as the electron-to-proton mass ratio would be on the same footing as the distance between our planet and the sun. Neither is fixed by the fundamental laws, but instead both are determined by historical accidents, restricted only by the fact that if these quantities did not lie within a suitable range, we would not be here to make the observations. This idea—that the laws of physics that we observe are determined not by fundamental principles, but instead by the requirement that intelligent life can exist to observe them—is often called the anthropic principle. Although in some contexts this principle might sound patently religious, the combination of inflationary cosmology and the landscape of string theory gives the anthropic principle a scientifically viable framework"
He also believes in the Big Bang and String Theory. Havent seen anything yet by him saying that he supports ID being taught in schools. Perhaps you could link to it???
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
How would one go about investigating such a thing?
A true scientific approach would not investigate Intellegent Design, as the title of this investigation would tend to taint the outcome. If one says they are going to investigate ID, the theory exists before the data suggests a solution.
A true scientist would investigate the origin of life by gathering data, coming up with a theory which best describes the data, test that theory against new data, synthesize an amended theory, publish and let others test the theory.
If the data and testing of the theory hold up than that theory whatever it may be would have validation. If ID is the best fit for the data, then it would be valid.
-
Theory would provide a focus for the study...but would not direct it toward any particular conclusion.
Clues might lie in the fossil records, or be hidden in our DNA. A determined search led by scientists open to but not fanatical devotees of the theory might discover those clues.
By the way...has the direct ancestral precursor to homo sapiens been found? The one that preceeded Crow Magnon is the one I mean.
-
The problem with starting out with the theory of ID is the religious faith intertwined in the idea. Those who are out to prove ID* are out to do just that. They are not looking to better explain whatever it is that is happening, they are out to prove they are right, because by God they are.
A quick google came up with this:
Homo Heidelbergensis is the species name now given to a range of specimens from about 800,000 years ago to the appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (the species to which we belong).
(http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/BHf.JPG)
*I realize I am painting with a broad brush, but many the most quotable ID investigators are paid for by religious organizations. They are not independant thinkers. It is like hiring an expert witness in a trial. You can get someone to testify they way you want to if you pick your expert and pay him well.
-
Not that I doubt the facts you presented Holden but personally, that skull bears a closer resemblance to Neanderthals, a dead-end branch of the human family tree, than to modern humans. It appears to have a much smaller cranium, beetle brows, etc.
I would think that the immediate precursor of Homo Sapiens would bear a much closer resemblance to us than that.
-
Can't give up your presupposition eh?;)
Shoulda' posted the link: Human Tree (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html)
According to this, they consider Heidelbergensis the immediate ancestor of both Neanderthal and Modern Humans.
-
I can see the resemblance to Neanderthal...but it just seems to be too big a leap from that to Cro-Magnon.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I can see the resemblance to Neanderthal...but it just seems to be too big a leap from that to Cro-Magnon.
What are your qualifications to make that determination?
-
I'll have to quote myself as I see no answer.
Seagoon I ask again
.
Seagoon, what I want from you is this, without sophistry or waffle.
Just how can you with all your intelligence give so much credence to a story which quite obviously was written as a fable by someone who had absolutely no idea how the Earth or the universe came into being?
Would God cease to exist if only one chapter of the bible is proved to be inaccurate?
You know with all these attacks on evolution. Maybe we should change tack and put the pressure on creationists.
After all there is some evidence for evolution. There is NONE for creationism.
Justify your beliefs gentlemen, the way you expect other to justify theirs.
-
Hello Cpxxx,
Originally posted by cpxxx
Seagoon I ask again
Seagoon, what I want from you is this, without sophistry or waffle.
Just how can you with all your intelligence give so much credence to a story which quite obviously was written as a fable by someone who had absolutely no idea how the Earth or the universe came into being?
Would God cease to exist if only one chapter of the bible is proved to be inaccurate?
I'm not sure how my belief in the bible has anything to do, even tangentially, with someone who rejects biblical creationism getting pushed out of the Smithsonian for daring to publish a peer-reviewed article questioning Darwinian evolution's ability to explain the Cambrian explosion. But I'm happy to try to comply with your request.
First off, how did the authors of the bible view what they were writing? Was this all "once upon a time..." as your question implies? Not at all, as a matter of fact, the apostle Peter was extremely zealous to make sure that people understood that scripture was an absolutely reliable record of facts:
"Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:14-21)
Peter speaks of himself and his fellow apostles as eyewitnesses to the events recorded in the gospel, and most especially to the divinity of Christ. He also wants them to understand, that this is not merely based upon possibly faulty observations. He comments on the transfiguration (Mat. 17, Mat. 9, Luke 9) and the fact that they not only saw with their own eyes the divine glory of Jesus, they heard the voice of God the Father from the cloud declaring Jesus to be his beloved Son who was doing his Wiil. They note that these events were in fact a confirmation of what was written previously in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah and how he would be "Immanuel" (which translated means "God with Us"). He then goes on to state that no scripture was "created" out of whole cloth by men, or even that it was a combination of the words of men and the words of God, but rather that all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. "They wrote as they were moved."
This concept of scripture as "God breathed" is further reinforced by the Apostle Paul when, for instance, he wrote:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)
All, not some, Scripture is Theopneustos literally God breathed and therefore without error.
Jesus, the very man whose Deity was asserted by Peter above, continually, quotes the scriptures as absolutely reliable, authentic, and unchangeable, and speaks of them as recording actual events. This includes the creation account. Christ confirms that in several places, for instance:
"And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."" (Matt. 19:3-5)
This attitude towards the creation account is reinforced throughout the Old and New Testament, and indeed several Christian doctrines including the fall of man and the initial proclamation of the gospel (Gen. 3:15), the imputation of Adam's Sin, the advent of sin and death, and the idea of the eternal Sabbath rest (Heb. 4) and so on depend upon the creation account. If Genesis is not an accurate account, biblical theology collapses and indeed Christ and His Apostles are liars and nothing that they said can be trusted.
However, I firmly believe from the internal evidence, and external confirmation, that the entire canon of scripture can be trusted. And regarding the formation of that canon, you are wrong to assert that the canon was created by committee, the lists of scripture cited by the early church fathers and those drawn up by men such as Iraneaus, Clement, and Athanasius prior to Nicaea are essentially the same as the ones we have now. For more on the creation of the canon, check out: The Formation of the New Testament Canon (http://www.providencepca.com/essays/warfieldcannon.html)
In any event, the fact that explanations for the origins of life that contradicted the word are being shown to be full of holes, doesn't serve to "confirm" my faith, I expect them to rise and fall one by one simply because they aren't true. But equally, I expect new falsehoods to rise in their place and for this process to go on till the second coming when the last of them will be vanquished forever.
As R.L. Dabney put it:
"Materialism and atheism will never win a permanent victory over the human mind. The most they can do is to betray a multitude of unstable souls to their own perdition by flattering them with future impunity in sin; and to visit upon Christendom occasional spasms of anarchy and crime. With masses of men, the latter result will always compel these schemes to work their own speedy cure. For, on their basis, there can be no moral distinction, no right, no wrong, no rational, obligatory motive, no rational end save immediate, selfish and animal good, and no rational restraints on human wickedness. The consistent working of materialism would turn all men into beasts of prey, and earth into pandemonium. The partial establishment of the doctrine immediately produces mischiefs so intolerable, that human society refuses to endure them. Besides this, the soul of man is incapable of persistent materialism and atheism, because of the inevitable action of those original, constitutive laws of thought and feeling, which qualify it as a rational spirit. These regulative laws of thought cannot be abolished by any conclusions which result from themselves, for the same reason that streams cannot change their own fountains. The sentiment of religion is omnipotent in the end. We may rest in assurance of its triumph, even without appealing to the work of the Holy Spirit, whom Christianity promises as the omnipotent attendant of the truth. While irreligious men explore the facts of natural history for fancied proofs of a creation by evolution which omits a Creator, the heralds of Christ will continue to lay their hands upon the heart strings of immortal men, and find there always the forces to overwhelm unbelief. Does the materialist say that the divine deals only with things spiritual? But spiritual consciousness are more stable than all his material masses; than his primitive granite. Centuries from now, (if man shall continue in his present state so long) when these current theories of unbelief shall have been consigned to that limbus, where Polytheism, the Ptolemaic astronomy, Alchemy and Judicial Astrology lie condemned, Christianity will hold on its beneficent way."
- SEAGOON
-
And there you have it. The evidence is the "bible" :rolleyes:
-
I admire the level of belief and commitment Seagoon has acheived. I think he is wrong, but his heart is in the right place.
-
However, I firmly believe from the internal evidence, and external confirmation, that the entire canon of scripture can be trusted. -- SEAGOON
When Jesus sent out the Apostles to heal and proclaim the Kingdom of God,
Mark 6:8 (English Standard Version)
He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in their belts-
Luke 9:3 (English Standard Version)
And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics."
Mark says they took staffs, Luke says they didn't.
Which Gospel do you trust?
The point is in order to accept ID as a viable scientific theory, science need verifiable, measurable evidence. Until this evidence is gathered ID will remain a spiritual, not a scientific explanation.
-
Thrawn,
What qualifications do I need? While our viewpoints may differ I like to think that mine carry a little weight, for my momma didn't raise any stupid children.:)
While my degrees are in Social Studies and Education, I have been more than mildly interested in the field of anthropology throughout my adult life. Therefore, I am unlikely to confuse a Neanderthal skull with that of a Cro-Magnon.
Having read about heidelbergensis in the past, your post caused me to try to refresh my memory about this so-called predecessor of modern man.
I found that the consensus of opinion among anthropologists about his place in human ancestry is that there is no consensus of opinion. Most anthropologists agree, however, that heidelbergensis is a descendant of an extinct race of hominids called homo antecessor that originated in Africa.
Homo antecessor spread from Africa, through the Middle East, and into Europe, where he emerged as the direct ancestor of heidelbergensis, who was the ancestor of the Neanderthals. If you compare the skulls of the heidelbergensis and Neanderthal you will notice a striking resemblance. The jaw of heidelbergensis is massive...indeed far larger than that of modern humans. Both he and Neanderthal are part of our family tree that branched off and became a dead end.
Homo antecessor of Africa apparently evolved into an intermediate species, which anthropologists have yet to discover, and thus into Homo Sapiens.
So THERE! Neener-neener-neener! Now who's butt is the blackest? :p
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Thrawn,
What qualifications do I need? While our viewpoints may differ I like to think that mine carry a little weight, for my momma didn't raise any stupid children.:)
While my degrees are in Social Studies and Education, I have been more than mildly interested in the field of anthropology throughout my adult life. Therefore, I am unlikely to confuse a Neanderthal skull with that of a Cro-Magnon.
Having read about heidelbergensis in the past, your post caused me to try to refresh my memory about this so-called predecessor of modern man.
I found that the consensus of opinion among anthropologists about his place in human ancestry is that there is no consensus of opinion. Most anthropologists agree, however, that heidelbergensis is a descendant of an extinct race of hominids called homo antecessor that originated in Africa.
Homo antecessor spread from Africa, through the Middle East, and into Europe, where he emerged as the direct ancestor of heidelbergensis, who was the ancestor of the Neanderthals. If you compare the skulls of the heidelbergensis and Neanderthal you will notice a striking resemblance. The jaw of heidelbergensis is massive...indeed far larger than that of modern humans. Both he and Neanderthal are part of our family tree that branched off and became a dead end.
Homo antecessor of Africa apparently evolved into an intermediate species, which anthropologists have yet to discover, and thus into Homo Sapiens.
So THERE! Neener-neener-neener! Now who's butt is the blackest? :p
Regards, Shuckins
wong post quoted.
-
Aw...I bet you're just saying that to keep from yielding a point.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Aw...I bet you're just saying that to keep from yielding a point.
I made my point at the top of this page. But next time you are so sure of your identification of skulls, might want to dig a little deeper. Brow line was totally inconsistent with neanderthral, I am not sure how you could have missed that being an expert and all.
-
Try to make your point in a gentlemanly fashion son. Insults do not lend weight to your point.
Reread my post. It is a summary of about a dozen articles I read on heidelbergensis. He was an evolutionary dead-end, and NOT the ancestor of Homo Sapiens.
Most of the anthropologists who were the authors of the articles that I read agreed that heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of Neanderthal. And there is a much closer resemblance to Neanderthal than to Cro-Magnon. The Mauer jaw discovered near Heidelberg, Germany is chinless and massively built...much like Neanderthals'.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Not that I doubt the facts you presented Holden but personally, that skull bears a closer resemblance to Neanderthals, a dead-end branch of the human family tree, than to modern humans. It appears to have a much smaller cranium, beetle brows, etc.
I would think that the immediate precursor of Homo Sapiens would bear a much closer resemblance to us than that.
Sorry quoted your wrong post above. I was talking about your observation of that skull...This is the one I meant to quote
Not to down your momma any but you need more schooling. I just finished my anthroplogy minor and gotta say that looks nothing like Neanderthral.
That is undoubtly Homo Heidelbergensis. Not only that but it appears to be the skull found at Broken Hill in Zambia. Estimated age, 300,000 years old.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I admire the level of belief and commitment Seagoon has acheived. I think he is wrong, but his heart is in the right place.
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.
-
A most stimulating discussion. There are, however, some incredible misconceptions and ommisions regarding ID research that have been allowed to persist throughout this discourse.
First, ID theorists start with the scientific evidence, or rather the current shortcomings as it relates to evolutionary theory (creationism, on the other hand, starts with an ancient text, and tries to make the evidence fit). Their conclusion is that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are in fact proved false by that evidence. Behe's assertions of irreducible complexity at the microbiology level being one example. ID'ers then posit that the intervention of an intelligent agent is a better explaination for this complexity.
The first glaring misrepressentation by opponents of ID is that ID'ers simply state, "a designer did it," and leave it at that. On the contrary, scientists involved in ID research undertand the need to back their hypothesis with evidence. To do so, some have turned to information theory as a possible avenue of research, and a concept known as "specified complexity." The basic premise is that the "fingerprint" of intelligence is detectable and prove-able.
I'll construct an example for you. Let's say you come upon a peice of natural white marble. In one irregular face of that block of stone are many swirles of silver gray (the natural patterns found in marble). The patterns certainly are complex, but complexity itself does not denote intelligence was involved in creating that complexity. If you look hard enough, you will likely find certain swirls that look like letters (english, for example, but any language will do). These swirls have some specificity, because they can be construed to look like letters, but only in the mind of an individual viewer. Furthermore, those psuedo letters convey no useful information.
Now imagine instead that you come upon a wedge-shaped marble block, whose shape is that of a perfect parallelogram. Carved in the marble are the words "Cap stone; place at center top of arch." You further look around and notice two pillars of marble that curve into an arch, with a gap at the top that eactly matches the size and shape of the "capstone" block. This stone block is both very complex, and highly specified. It is said to posses specified complexity. Mathematically, it is possible to determine the probability of the letters lining up, and the stone being exactly shaped to fit the gap. It is also possible, so such ID scientists as Willian Dempski claims, to determine if enough time has elapsed since the big bang for that specified complexity to have arrisen through naturalistic processes. If it could not, than intelligence was involved. ID theorists hope to apply this kind of mathematical analysis to such things as DNA and molecular machines. A single living cell is analogous to our capstone, but infinitely more complex.
A second misconception is that ID scientists want ID taught in the schools. In general, they do not. They believe it is still in its infancy, and has not yet been sufficiently developed to warrant placing it on a par with neo-Darwinist evolution. Discovery Institute, a major center for ID research, has actually fought against teaching it in schools, as they feel it isn't ready for that yet. It is about academic freedom for them (the question that started this whole thread, in case you missed it). They want their studies and work to be peer reviewed, to "pass muster" within the scientific community. What they get is attack and oppression instead.
"There is no critism of evolution," evolutionists claim, "because we asked all the scientist that agree with us and they said so." "ID isn't science, because it hasn't been peer reviewed," evolutionists clain. But they won't review it because "ID isn't science." Fortunately, the work of ID scientists is making inroads into the serious scientific community (peer reviews and all), despite the dogmatic resistence of the majority. The article that this beleguered Smithsonian scientist had the gaul to approve for publication was peer reviewed, rigorously and according to all the appropriate standards.
On another note: Much of evolutionary research (most, I'd say, but I don't have statistics to back that claim) starts from the assumption that there is a naturalistic, random, and unguided (as in "no guiding intelligence) explanation to life...all the way from the origins of the universe, though the origins of the first living cell, and to include all the diversity of life that exist and has ever existed. In otherwords, with an assumption. ID researchers starts with a different assumption, backed by what they see as credible evidence, both against evolution and for design, and try to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
A final note: Many of the scientist who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" proclaimation are not religious; some are. If a scientist believes in God or other supreme creator, does that automatically invalidate his work when it runs contradictory to Darwinian evolution, or supports intelligent design? If so, what then do we make of Dawkins, who said, "Darwin has made it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist"? Does it automatically follow that an atheistic scientist's work that supposedly supports evolution should be discounted because it happens to fit in with his belief system?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
ID'ers then posit that the intervention of an intelligent agent is a better explaination for this complexity.
That seems like quite a stretch for a null hypothesis.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
On the surface, DMF, it might seem so. However, not when you look at it in light of the concept of specified-complexity. If indeed specified complexity can only arise from intervention of an intelligent agent, and if you can point to evidence of such in biological systems (at the species level, the cellular level, and molecular level), it naturaly follows. That is what ID scientists are trying to prove. When an archeologist comes upon stone ruins, he/she uses the concept to identify them as such. We use the concept without concious thought every moment of every day, in fact.
The problem with the "scientific method" as it is applied to evolutionary biology by ID opponents is that it is a philosophy, or at least is based on one, where only naturalistic explainations are allowed. They in effect claim ID is "unscientific" because they have effectively defined it as such. So even when scientific methods are applied (as ID theorists are trying to do), the "main-stream" scientific community label it unscientific because their definition of "science" allows only naturalistic (and inherently unguided) explainations. Some here have said that you can't prove the existance of the intelligent agent. ID theory says that perhaps we can. If they are right, then to ignore the role of that agent is counter to the true essense of science, which is to seek the truth. At least the should be allowed the academic freedom to do so. And the notion that even allowing that research will somehow arrest scientific progress is rediculous. As has been pointed out, much of the progress that was made before the ascendancy of naturalism was made under the assumption that a supreme being of some sort created everything. We are inherantly curious creatures. Just knowing it is possible to design something will lead to a burning desire to know how it was designed, so that we might do the same.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
A second misconception is that ID scientists want ID taught in the schools. In general, they do not. They believe it is still in its infancy, and has not yet been sufficiently developed to warrant placing it on a par with neo-Darwinist evolution. Discovery Institute, a major center for ID research, has actually fought against teaching it in schools, as they feel it isn't ready for that yet. It is about academic freedom for them (the question that started this whole thread, in case you missed it). They want their studies and work to be peer reviewed, to "pass muster" within the scientific community. What they get is attack and oppression instead.
Excellent post, Sabre.
To the point that ID researchers know that they're research is in its infancy and do not think it should be taught in school until it has passed muster - they are doing an extreemly poor job at making this clear and reigning in those who wish to diminish any serious science in favor of exploiting the religeous connotations.
When the POTUS weighs in on the ignorant side of the issue, don't you think that the "legitimate" ID researchers need to step up and clear the air - or are they so blinded by the potential for federal funding? These serious ID researchers, to gain legitimacy for their science, should be just as vocal - or perhaps more so - in calling out those who want to use their science to promote a religeous socio-political agenda.
-
Thank you, Samiam. In all fairness, they (Discovery Institute and other ID researchers) are trying to get that message out. Unfortunately, the media finds a "science vs. religion" take much more interesting, so ID proponents have an uphill battle in this regards. Many of the news reports that have come out are uninformed about what ID is and isn't, and often there is little effort to include an ID point of view or input. The coverage is improving as the debate moves to the mainstream.
Regarding President Bush's comments, the should be taken in context with how the question was asked and in how he answered. While the reception by the ID community has been generally positive concerning the President's words, they have indeed tried to make their position clear. While they welcome the President's desire to expose students to multiple theories and views, they do not believe ID should be mandated. Indeed, even GWB' remark was a general one, and he has maintained that such decisions on public school curiculm remains in the realm of state's rights. The message remains muted, but it is slowly getting out. Their desires are two-fold: to teach evolution fully -- including the evidence for and against -- and to not forebid the discussion of competing lines of research.
-
As long as it's research and not based on any religious aspirations. ID therefore can never be taught at schools. It has no theory or research out of religion.
-
ID is a joke. It's like saying since we don't know why things can't travel faster than the speed of light, it must be god slowing them down. Its not science, its religion.
Explain mental retardation and disease and how they fit in with an "intelligent creator".....
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ID is a joke. It's like saying since we don't know why things can't travel faster than the speed of light, it must be god slowing them down. Its not science, its religion.
Explain mental retardation and disease and how they fit in with an "intelligent creator".....
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.
-
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.
It assumes something not in evidence. Objection over-ruled
-
Thanks for the detailed reply Seagoon. But to be fair it pretty much confirms my theory that attacks on evolution by creationists are not about the supposed failings in evolutionary theory but a reactive response in order to defend their religious viewpoint.
Other Christians who are not so wedded to the absolute veracity of the bible have no problem with evolution because it simply does not represent a threat to their religion or their view of God's existence. 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. Anybody can say what they wrote is the word of God. You simply cannot be sure of anything written by anyone whether 2000 years ago or yesterday. Frankly that includes the bible.
Unfortunately there can be no accomodation between your view of absolute certainty and that of evolution. Evolution is subject to all the rigours of scientific scrutiny. Creationism is above criticism. If your are to be honest with yourself, your opposition to evolution is nothing to do with the supposed flaws of evolution but all to do with the threat is presents to your religion.
As such, any attacks by creationists on evolution simply lack credibility. It is quite ironic that creationists use science itself to attack science.
As for ID, it is nothing more than junk science. While it has no attractions for creationists for the same reason as evolution. It does have certain attractions for those people who believe in a deity of sorts. ID by it's nature implies that someone or something gives evolution a push. Someone powerful and intelligent.
It's all very well saying that many scientists who support ID are not religious. But mahy people who do not follow organised religion still believe in God. That includes scientists.
Quite simply ID in it's essence is supposed to prove by supposed scientific method that a God exists. Many people over the years have tried to prove the existence of God by scientific means or otherwise. This is just another attempt.
That is why it is attractive to many people. It's also it's biggest flaw.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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......
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Einstien believed in ID.
-
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?
....snip....
Just as an aside, the Judeo-Christian answer to this question is pretty straightforward.
God made a perfect universe, but one which included man's freedom to choose. When mankind chose to reject God's path, THAT ACTION introduced imperfection -- into the human heart, and into every facet of the universe.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Einstien believed in ID.
YOu need to read a little more about his beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Booz
"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
I believe I mentioned the possibility that ID scientists might have personal views on who the designer was. My point is that ID theory is not about proving who or why, but only if. Dawkins is a devout (if such a term applies) atheist. Do we assume that any work he does to prove evolutionary theory is suspect, and motivated by an intense desire to prove all the believers in a higher power wrong? Many of those 400 scientists who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" proclaimation were not christians or even "believers" in a supernatural being. They merely looked at the evidence and said, "Hey, you know, some of what is ascribed to Darwinian evolution just doesn't fit what we now know.
However, let's get back to the central question of this thread. Was it right for Richard Sternberg to be effectively ostrisized from the Smithsonian, simply for allowing Meyer's paper to be published? The paper was submitted by a highly credentialed scientist, underwent peer review according to all the standards of the publication, and approved. Therefore, it must have been considered "scientific" and worthy of publishing. By the way, if you haven't yet, you ought to read it, if for no other reason than to be cognizant of the particulars in this case.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I believe I mentioned the possibility that ID scientists might have personal views on who the designer was.
You picked him, not me. Find me one who honestly doesn't, then we'll talk.
Many of those 400 scientists who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" proclaimation were not christians or even "believers" in a supernatural being.
Almost 100 of them in the field of biology..but,
How many were named Steve?
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
Didja the see the "5000 christian clergy accept the evidence for evolution" document too?
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
However, let's get back to the central question of this thread. Was it right for Richard Sternberg to be effectively ostrisized from the Smithsonian, simply for allowing Meyer's paper to be published? The paper was submitted by a highly credentialed scientist
You're talking about Stephen Meyers right? The guy that tried to sucker the Ohio state Board of Education to actually "teach" ID?
..underwent peer review according to all the standards of the publication, and approved.
"STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."
i.e. Sterberg slipped one in for his buddy on his own right after he submitted his resignation
Therefore, it must have been considered "scientific" and worthy of publishing. By the way, if you haven't yet, you ought to read it, if for no other reason than to be cognizant of the particulars in this case.
Sternberg got caught pushing a political agenga by slipping in non-scientific crap. He did it to himself, but ostracizing him is appropriate.
Get some sources other than Discovery Institute & ICR, they are lying to you. If for no other reason than to be cognizant of the truth.
-
Nice finds Booz. :)
"It is in the bible" just doesnt cut it.
ID is doublespeak no matter how you dice it up.
It is a way to slip biblical beliefs in on an unsuspecting public using lies and distortions to further a fanatical religious agenda.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Einstien believed in ID.
Nice bait roofer..
Religion is irrational:
Credo quia absurdum, remember?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
And you missed mine. ID makes no claims about the designer or his/her/its motives.
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.
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.
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.
1)See the point I am making is that if the Reason you think ID is a good theory is because there are some holes in evolution than I just pointed out some holes in ID. So it must be wrong too, right?
2)Give me a break. Saying ID is not Creationism is ignorance.
3)Your wrong about ID. What you are spouting is the crap that Creationists/ID wanters spew which in all actuallity is nothing at all like they want taught.
4)It's just another way for religion to try to force it's way into people's lives. This time using the schools. Last time it was through the 10 commandments in our public buildings. Go read the history of Creationism and ID and you will see ID came about because pure Creationism is so unfathomable they knew no one would take them seriously. All they did was tone down the language not the idea.
5)In YOUR exact words, what would you want the teacher to tell kids at school. Do not link me to someone else, I want to know what you want them to teach our CHILDREN!
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Just as an aside, the Judeo-Christian answer to this question is pretty straightforward.
God made a perfect universe, but one which included man's freedom to choose. When mankind chose to reject God's path, THAT ACTION introduced imperfection -- into the human heart, and into every facet of the universe.
Sorry but a Asteroids big enough to destroy earth flying by Us every few hundred years is not a "Perfect Universe".
So your saying we pissed god off so he decided to make it less safe for our civilization? wow
-
The words "design" and "create" are synonyms. So are "creationism" and "intelligent design". They both are also religious propaganda.
-
Booz: I can see we're going around in circles. All I can suggest is you go actually read Meyer's article. As for the Biological Society of Washington's declaration, it is correct in that Sternberg did not pass it to an associate editor. It was his perogative to handle the paper himself, which he and other managing editors had done numerous times in the past. This was his purogative, and there was nothing in the review standards of the Proceedings that forbids this. They are flat wrong to infer the paper was not peer reviewed, for it was. He also discussed the paper with another member of the Council. Here is a link to the US Office of Special Investigation report on the matter...
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
If you want to hear more of Sternberg's side of the story, look here...
http://www.rsternberg.net/
The bottom line is, Sternberg choose to handle this himself because it was a field he was very familiar with (two degrees in evolutionary biology), and because he knew it would be controversial (though just how controversial he probably never imagined).
Regarding Meyers and the Ohio State Board of Education, are you refering to the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan adopted last year for use in schools statewide by the Ohio State Board of Education? This is not teaching ID, however much you would equate the two. I know that Meyers has commented publicly on the issue, but how is that "suckering" the OSBE?
As for "Project Steve", well, even the NCSE admits it's tongue in cheek. Nonetheless, the NCSE is a political organization on the forefront of supressing any dissent from Darwinism. You can hardly hold them up as an unbiased critic. And as for the "5000 Christians" petition, so what? If you won't believe a christian scientist when he/she says they don't believe the fullness of evolutionary theory, why would you believe christian non-scientist who happen to say Evolution is scientific truth? Seems to be just a case of believing those who believe as you do.
Sternberg is not the first to suffer this kind of backlash from the mainstream science establishment. A science education grad student at Ohio State named Leonard has undergone a kind of academic ex-communication for submitting a thesis. What was the topic? Leonard's dissertation research analyzed how teaching students evidence for and against macroevolution impacted student beliefs.
And Raider, you didn't point out holes in ID theory; you pointed out what you believe are holes in creationism.
5)In YOUR exact words, what would you want the teacher to tell kids at school. Do not link me to someone else, I want to know what you want them to teach our CHILDREN!
Fair enough. It's simple. Teach evolution as a theory, including what has actually been proven (microevolution, for instance), and where is is supposition (origins of life, origins of higher forms). Teach the points for and against. Tell them the stuff that has not been explained as yet, i.e. where the holes in the theory are. Remove the patently false evolutionary examples that persist in the textbooks to this day. Insure students know that the varying size of a finch's beak does not prove that a lizard becomes a bird, or a duckbilled playtypus, or an ape. And if a student asks if there are any other theories being investigated by scientists to explain the origins of life and development of the species, give the educator the freedom to say, "yes." If a student says, "Hey, what about 'intelligent design?" give students and the teacher the academic freedom to discuss it. I do not believe ID should be taught in the classroom at this time, as there is yet insufficient content and it is still only in the beginning stages of scientifiic exploration.
In any event, this has been a spirited, if sometimes mean-spirited debate, and I've enjoyed it (for all that it feels at times like I've been talking to myself :)). I only hope someone's gotten something useful out of it.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
The words "design" and "create" are synonyms. So are "creationism" and "intelligent design". They both are also religious propaganda.
Actually, they're not synonyms. Even if they were, it does not follow that Creationism and ID are (which they're not).
-
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.
How about a fourth option?
4. God exists, but holy scripture is just man thinking he is more important in the universe than he actually is.
Anthropomorphism rocks.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I do not believe ID should be taught in the classroom at this time, as there is yet insufficient content and it is still only in the beginning stages of scientifiic exploration.
Here we agree, and it will pretty much stay this way forever because as soon as the christian "scientist" concludes that "the intelligent designer" did it, he can pretty much turn out the lights in the lab & retire.
Meanwhile real science will continue, and the christian scientist will have to spend hours & hours seeking for the vanishing smaller gaps, what hasn't yet been minutely explained in science (the only Discovery Institute research) in order to insert his "intellligent designer", then turn out the lights & go home again.
Evidence FOR a designer? Uum, because it's too complicated!!!
Did Steven Meyer actually present any actual evidence FOR a "designer" in his paper? Did he publish any test results? Or was it nothing more than a long winded argument from incredulty?
Granted, reality is much more complicated than any single book of fables. But you'll never force the world to stop investigating, as much as you'd like to. You may seriously criple the US ablity to compete worldwide for a generation, but the rest of the world will advance scientific knowlege without you.
The game is a losing battle, and the creationists have been losing it decade after decade, so badly that they've finally watered it down to a basic "nuh huh, it's a designer" presented only in the politcal arena. Yet their religious convictions force them to keep playing it for some reason, ignoring thousands of university & professional publications & lab results along the way. Seeking only where to sneak their "designer" in.
No testing to help establish who, where, when, how or why about anything in biology, just "the theory of evolution isn't 100% perfect". And you guys really do call that scientific research.
Booz
When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
-
Here we agree...
See? We can bridge our differences.:p
Evidence FOR a designer? Uum, because it's too complicated!!!
Did Steven Meyer actually present any actual evidence FOR a "designer" in his paper? Did he publish any test results? Or was it nothing more than a long winded argument from incredulty?
Read the paper. Othewise anything you have to say about it is based in ignorance.
Granted, reality is much more complicated than any single book of fables. But you'll never force the world to stop investigating, as much as you'd like to. You may seriously criple the US ablity to compete worldwide for a generation, but the rest of the world will advance scientific knowlege without you.
This is the silliest argument against moving forward with ID research put forth by the evolutionist crowd. Investigation and advancement went on for the thousands of years where acceptance of a "creator" was nearly universal. To say that somehow science will stop asking "how" just because a designer is determined to have played a part is reactionary nonesense. We are hopelessly and insatiably curious creatues.
-
If ID theory is truely a scientific endeavor why does it exclude naturalistic and evolutionary principle?
If it's truely an open minded approach, why can't it include evolution?
Maybe because it's just god magic and mythology in a lab coat.
Yeah evolution is just a theory, so is gravity and copernican system.
-
Originally posted by Suave
If ID theory is truely a scientific endeavor why does it exclude naturalistic and evolutionary principle?
If it's truely an open minded approach, why can't it include evolution?
Maybe because it's just god magic and mythology in a lab coat.
Yeah evolution is just a theory, so is gravity and copernican system.
An excellent question, Sauve. I could ask the same of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (in fact, that is I believe the whole point of this thread). The answer to your question is, it does not exclude them. It only disputes how much of the origins of life and the species is due solely to the effects of undirected modification and natural selection. I'm sure if you look deeper into the published literature, that will become apparent.
You're also right in that gravitational theory is just that, a theory. We can observe its effects, and we can even make some measurements and predictions. But we do not understand exactly what it is and how it came to be. Our understanding is incomplete, with mysteries yet to be solved. We're certainly a long way from controling it (a byproduct of our incomplete understanding of gravity).
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Sorry but a Asteroids big enough to destroy earth flying by Us every few hundred years is not a "Perfect Universe".
So your saying we pissed god off so he decided to make it less safe for our civilization? wow
Wondering if you're falling into the logical trap of disproving the thesis by first assuming it to be false....
What passes for human civilization is alive and kicking, so the end of life event you're referring to hasnt occurred as yet. ALso, the asteroid risk you observe is, after all, a part of life "after teh fall", not before it. The presence of potential danger ddoesnt rule out protective influences.
Judeo-Christian teaching doesnt look at the fallen world as a punishment meted out by a pissed off God, but rather as a notural consequence of actions. Introducing imperfections wasnt his idea....
The difference is more than hair splitting. If my kid blows off homework for a term, the natural consequence is a bad grade. It's not punishment, its not cruelty -- it jsut follows from teh choices made.
'Course if my kid were to try that, there WOULD be a ....um.... parental intervention that was distinct from and in addition to the natural consequence.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
What passes for human civilization is alive and kicking, so the end of life event you're referring to hasnt occurred as yet.
T-Rex civilization sure took it in the shorts though.
-
I'd bet that if we were to combine all of the Evolution/Creation threads over the past 4 years they would have enough raw words in them to randomly create life in the form of a letter amoeba.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
T-Rex civilization sure took it in the shorts though.
T-Rex wore shorts?
Probably THAT would explain the extinction thing. WIth those little foreclaws, aint no way T Rex could undo his shorts.....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd bet that if we were to combine all of the Evolution/Creation threads over the past 4 years they would have enough raw words in them to randomly create life in the form of a letter amoeba.
:rofl
-
This is an interesting discussion that hits close to home for me.
Me: Agnostic Naturalist
Wife: Born Again Christian
It gets interesting once in a while....
She once tried to get me to read a book to my kids that showed drowning dinosaurs next to the Ark....
I'm not anti-religion. Just don't mix religion with science or wrap religion in a fancy wrapping and pretend it's science.
I may just freak her out and anounce that I'm "Pastafarian" and worship the The Great Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM
* Flimsy moral standards.
* Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
* Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.
Check this link
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/atran05/atran05_index.html
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
or
http://www.sciam.com/
and Search for "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"
I read this book and this review is accurate of what I thought.
http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Reviews/evolution.html
My two losey cents worth... flame away..
lothar
Noodlism (http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Reviews/evolution.html)
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Actually, they're not synonyms. Even if they were, it does not follow that Creationism and ID are (which they're not).
Actually, they are synonyms, according to the dictionary. ID is creationism lightly coated in popular science, warping science to comply with a preconceived notion. Very much like what the Nazi scientists (without further similarity) did in the '30s when they were searching for traces of the ancient Aryan master race in the Himalayas. ID is the result of Christians trying to explain God through science because kids nowadays like Star Trek more than going to church.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Investigation and advancement went on for the thousands of years where acceptance of a "creator" was nearly universal. To say that somehow science will stop asking "how" just because a designer is determined to have played a part is reactionary nonesense. We are hopelessly and insatiably curious creatues.
Because of Christendom we are about half a millennia behind on science. During the Dark Ages of Christian church rule in Europe science was outlawed as heresy and scientists persecuted as witches. The only real progress made during those dark years where done in spite of religion with great difficulty and personal risk.
However, even if hampered by the great ball and chain of Christianity, Europe still managed to progress faster than other cultures in the world that were even more hampered by their oppressive and stagnate religions. The result was centuries of European dominance of this planet. The day mankind finally rids itself of the shackles of religion we might finally achieve our full potential as "curious creatures".
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Where does the blind faith come in?
Faith imho is irrational and the source of most of the world's attrocities/problems.
-
Faith is by definition irrational. Belief without reason.
"Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen." Jesus Christ
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Faith imho is irrational and the source of most of the world's attrocities/problems.
Faith is irrational.
But don't confuse people who have faith with people who have faith and are just plain nuts.
Actions speak louder than words.
When someone with "faith" makes any motion however feinting or overt towards something negative, anything negative, using their faith as a justification, then they ultimately do not have faith.
Real faith wouldn't allow it.
-
What was it Plato said about there being only Good and mistaken Good?
"Real faith" is a misnomer.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Because of Christendom we are about half a millennia behind on science. During the Dark Ages of Christian church rule in Europe science was outlawed as heresy and scientists persecuted as witches. The only real progress made during those dark years where done in spite of religion with great difficulty and personal risk.
...snip....
Nice recap of popular propaganda there, Falcon.
Course, some scholars might suggest that there were economic (serfdom), political (feudalism and the anarchy of power vacuums), and social (black plague) influences to slow progress down -- but who am I to get in the way of a polemicist on a mission?
Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? Medieval scholasticist who extensively argued that creation was an expression of the character of God, and thus was orderly and comprehensible? That understanding creation would give insight into the nature of the creator? Prior to him, university professors were locked into the Greek tradition, and treated Aristotle as divine writ; if it didnt jive with aristotle it was out of bounds.
Love to see any references you have to actual scientists actually being burned....
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Faith imho is irrational and the source of most of the world's attrocities/problems.
I imagine you take that belief on faith...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Nice recap of popular propaganda there, Falcon.
Course, some scholars might suggest that there were economic (serfdom), political (feudalism and the anarchy of power vacuums), and social (black plague) influences to slow progress down -- but who am I to get in the way of a polemicist on a mission?
Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? Medieval scholasticist who extensively argued that creation was an expression of the character of God, and thus was orderly and comprehensible? That understanding creation would give insight into the nature of the creator? Prior to him, university professors were locked into the Greek tradition, and treated Aristotle as divine writ; if it didnt jive with aristotle it was out of bounds.
Love to see any references you have to actual scientists actually being burned....
How dare you take away the anti-ID crowd's favorite scare tactic, Simaril! Shame on you. ;)
BTW, Falcon, neither my Webster's or my MS Word Thesauris listed "create" and "design" as synonims. If yours did, then so be it. However, it is still simplton logic to claim that just because the two root words are synomonis that the concepts embodied in "creationism" and "ID" are as well. I will admit (how could I not?) that ID is a requirement of creationsism (the litteral interpretation of Genesis, with God as the designer), but the opposite can not be said.
I guess what I have to ask the materialist crowd is, if (and admittedly the question is still undecided) a designer was involved at some stage of the development of life on Earth, is it not worth trying to find evidence of that? Claims of "it's not 'real' science" aside, it is nonetheless a quest for truth and understanding. Is that not ultimately what science is about? Again I point to such diciplins as archeology, cryptography, and forensics as classic examples which are in effect a search for signs of intelligent agents. Yet, I've never heard anyone claim that such pursuits are "not real science," and thus not worth pursuing. I guess I just don't get what the evolutionist crowd is so afraid of. Why can't the two co-exist, with researchers (let's fore go the argument of whether either group are "true scientists") working to advance both ideas? Certainly there are areas where both camps agree, such as micro-evolution and (at least for some ID theorists like Behe) common descent. Why the vitriol and witchhunt tactics like was used against Sternberg?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Love to see any references you have to actual scientists actually being burned....
How about after being convicted of heresy, being forced to stifle the truth and placed on house arrest for the rest of his life under threat of worse?
"But it does move" Galileo
But you wanted references to an actual burning....
How about
Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How about after being convicted of heresy, being forced to stifle the truth and placed on house arrest for the rest of his life under threat of worse?
"But it does move" Galileo
But you wanted references to an actual burning....
How about
Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
Just cause I'm an attention potato I would like to point out that I referenced Bruno in my first post of this thread... So give me my props!
-
Originally posted by moot
"Real faith" is a misnomer.
Aww... I was pretty happy with that combination of words, personally. ;)
-
Mea culpa MT...
-
It's cool. I'm feeling much better now.
Ya'll go ahead on and enjoy your discussion of the fable of creations.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It's cool. I'm feeling much better now.
The prozac's kickin' in, uh?
-
Sabre,
Based on my personal experience from converstations with a wide range of folks from my wifes church, is that they presume or assume ID or Creationism.
To me, science is asking "How?", and then trying to figure it out by whatever methods best fit the question. With ID or Creationism the "How?" question tends to be answered "Becuase it was designed, you don't need to know...". ID and Creatism presume the answer and you data mine to fit your conclusion, and yes, this practice is human nature and not limited to ID or Creationist, it's just more prevelant.
Since my wife is a Christian, I have been associating with Christians and have attended a wide number of churches regularly over the last 15 years. I even got baptised in a Baptist Church in my twenties. I've seen people pull themselves out of addictions and restore thier marriages because of the support they get from the community they find in church.
I've also seen people (from church) fail at these same things, with the same community and hundreds of people praying for them. I watched hundreds of times as people gathered and laid hands on the sick, they got better after they went to the doctor. But they claim "God healed me....". They talk about demons and healings that happen all the time in third world countries in Africa and Asia, far away from any form of verification.
I've talked to a close friend who is a Christian. He wants to go to some place near Dallas and see the human foot print next to the dinasuar tracks. I didn't have the heart (or courage) to tell him that myth has been debunked numerous times.
I stop considering my self a Christian about 10 years ago, mainly because I couldn't stand to associate with (or be associated with) most hard core Born Again Christians. I've seen changes in my wife that I think are not emotionally healthy that are due to her "re-dedication to God". They can see, but are yet blind...
Keep ID and Creationism in Church. It's not science, it's religion.
lothar
Pastafarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian)
-
Not arguing your sense of wordplay, Nash..
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I guess what I have to ask the materialist crowd is, if (and admittedly the question is still undecided) a designer was involved at some stage of the development of life on Earth, is it not worth trying to find evidence of that?
If there is a critter such as the Yeti, and there's all kinds of folkloric and some claim even physical evidence that there is, is in not worth trying to prove it?
A search for Yeti can be done in a very scientific fashion and there may be plenty of people who think it's a worthwhile endeavor and there may even be governments who would fund it.
But don't ask for my tax dollars to fund it and don't teach Yeti as being anything other than folklore to my children in school.
-
Lothar: I appreciate the sincerity of your post. Again, I can only stress that belief in any particular religion is not a prerequisite for either questioning Darwinistic Evolution or looking for evidence of design in nature. ID does not require you believe in a supernatural “god” (although as I have already pointed out, Creationism requires belief in a “designer”) or in the literal interpretation of ancient scriptures. Plenty of ID proponents do not subscribe to creationism (either young-earth or old-earth varieties). The simple premise is that (A) undirected (i.e. no guiding intelligence) forces are either inadequate or completely fail to explain certain aspects of the origins or complexity of life, (B) that an intelligent agent’s involvement would better explain that complexity (at the cellular level and, possibly, at the level of origins of higher life forms), and (C) that it should therefore be possible to detect that design influence. The tools to detect that design are the same used by archeology, cryptology, and forensic sciences.
Regarding the “how” question as you put it, I think you have it wrong there. ID does not start from a premise of “how”, but of “who/what”, i.e. an intelligent designer. The search for “how” would continue, much as it does today. Should ID someday become widely accepted as a competing theory for Darwinism, it would not put an end to that search for “how.” Why you believe it would is not clear to me. Even if design influence is conclusively proven, why would that end study into the many aspects of evolution that are not in conflict with ID? Indeed, as competing theories, I expect both lines of study would continue in parallel, since some will always remain unconvinced. Once we understand that “something/someone” designed aspects of our planetary biology, we would still have to pursue the “how” and even the “why”. Indeed, simply knowing a thing can be done often spurs us on to learn how it was done. This is often what happens in reverse engineering. Looked at another way, Darwinistic evolutionists assume no designer, thus they spend tremendous energy and resources trying to explain how everything happened by accident. However, if it is learned conclusively that a designer was involved in the origins of life or the species, should they ignore that fact, and continue to stubbornly ignore it? A big “if”, I know, but does that mean we shouldn’t try to find out?
Many things not considered “true science” (though who decides what that means is unclear) are nonetheless considered serious and worthwhile pursuits. Whether one considers ID to fall under this dubious moniker or not, it is still worth questioning. If sufficient evidence supports it, that evidence should be taught in schools. It does not at this time, but we know not what the future holds.
Put aside your understandable concern regarding religion, and tell me: If SETI suddenly announced it had received radio signals that were so complex and so specific (i.e. repeating, non-random signals that contained decipherable information of some sort), such they could not with any reasonable probability have been generated randomly, should the scientific community ignore it? Would you? Certainly some might (religious fundamentalists might very well do so, if they felt it would cause the collapse of their particular brand-X of religion). Other, more reasonable people would have to adapt their world view and conclude that “we are not alone in the universe.” They might even adapt their beliefs to accept it without dropping most of the basic tenants of those beliefs (faith is like that). Indeed, every time some aspect of Darwinism has been proven inadequate, its practitioners and high priests have shown a remarkable ability to instantly generate new hypotheses about how evolution allows this. Rarely is this new hypothesis amenable to either testing or falsifiability, the twin icons of “scientific-ness.”
-
Originally posted by Samiam
If there is a critter such as the Yeti, and there's all kinds of folkloric and some claim even physical evidence that there is, is in not worth trying to prove it?
A search for Yeti can be done in a very scientific fashion and there may be plenty of people who think it's a worthwhile endeavor and there may even be governments who would fund it.
But don't ask for my tax dollars to fund it and don't teach Yeti as being anything other than folklore to my children in school.
If the evidence became strong enough, and enough people thought it worthwhile, then I don't doubt we'd end up spending tax dollars on it. Since we (or at least I) live in a democracy, where our government is supposed to act according to the wishes of The People, that is as it should be. And I've already agreed that teaching ID in science classes at our public schools is inappropriate at this time.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Put aside your understandable concern regarding religion, and tell me: If SETI suddenly announced it had received radio signals that were so complex and so specific (i.e. repeating, non-random signals that contained decipherable information of some sort), such they could not with any reasonable probability have been generated randomly, should the scientific community ignore it? Would you?
Sabre, you keep using SETI as an analogy and, while there's an analogy it DOES NOT support your argument.
NASA stopped funding for SETI in 1993 because it was not good science and not a rational way to spend taxpayer dollars.
SETI is based in the premise that it's a massively large and complex universe and it's arrogant to believe that Earth is the only planet that can support life and even more arrogant to think that a planet that could support life wouldn't eventually be inhabited by intelligent beings. This is basically non-science. There's nothing observed - other than a large and complex universe - that should lead us to believe that we will find radiographic proof of intelligent life.
The point is whether SETI should be taught as science in school. If my child's science teacher states that there is mostly likely intelligent life out there and SETI is our best chance at find it, I'll have a problem with that as teaching non-science in science class. If ,rather, the teacher says there's this thing called SETI which isn't really based on science - and explains why - but it's romantic and people want to pursue it anyway, I'm mostly OK with that.
ID is based on a similarly non-specific premise that life is complex and we don't understand how all of it works yet and therefore it's arrogant to think that there's not some intelligent force at work. On that premise we can set forth with the "science" (it's really more of a quest) of proving it. All fine and good - just don't ask for taxpayer money to fund the quest and don't teach my child - in a science class - that there's any scientific legitimacy to the quest.
-
Sabre,
Thank you for the reply. I agree, neither ID (as described in your email) nor Evolution is falsifiable or empirically testable, at this time. New Earth Creationism is both easily falsifiable and testable.
I've just started reading a book my wife bought called "A Case for Creation" by Lee Strobel. While I've only skimmed a few pages, most of his examples that I saw for Creation or ID or against Evolution are very misleading. He is pre-biased and data mined. He is supposed to be an Investigative Reporter, yet he uses the Miller/Urey experiment as proof that evolution couldn't happen. The test was flawed because the atmospheric conditions used in the test later turned to inaccurate. Yet, no mention is made of Joan Oro who did a similar experiment in 1961 with updated conditions or the many variations tried later on, each able (as far as I know) to reproduce nucleotides of adenine, the base for RNA and DNA, or samples from comets that contain numerous varitians fo amino acids... this list goes on, yet this is what 90% of the Christians I hang out with believe to the gospel truth. I personally believe this guy saw an opportunity to make a lot of money off of gullible Christians by telling them exactly what they want to hear.
If God or god or an alien landed and said "Hey dad, come look at what I made in the puddle in the back yard..", of course, it would make a difference. The statement about SETI is begging the answer.
I'll tell you my fear:
ID, from what I've read and heard from people who strongly believe in it, is being used as a method to get God and Jesus into public schools. It's the Trojan Horse for Creationism. I've heard this with my own ears, not from a friend of a friend, but first hand. This is based on personal experience. IF ID is taught, as it stands today, as a science, it will morph into Creationism. The will to learn the "How?" will suffer. A lot of folks don't want to see their God go from "God, the Creator of the Universe" to "god, the engineer who can't leave stuff alone..." I've seen it happen at Church. These are college-educated professionals. I listen to these conversations and listen to them pray for public schools to be "Set free from the bonds of Satan..." and I hear the political agenda of a lot of Christians and I'm afraid for my children's future. The thirst for understanding will take a huge step backwards to be replaced by "Worship' and "Prayer".
The only people I see pushing ID are Christians. That scares me, it is creationism wrapped in a new package for better mass appeal.
lothar
Pastafarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian)
Edited to remove MS Word characters...
-
Samiam: Sorry, but in this day and age of instant information access, you need to do better. Look here to see the history of SETI.
http://history.nasa.gov/garber.pdf
The one-paragraph intro (below) does a good job of summing it up. However, I encourage you to read the entire PDF, is it says quite clearly and often that many scientist accepted that this was a scientifically sound program. The manner in which it was attacked was not unlike what we see happening today in the evolution-ID debate.
On Columbus Day, 1992, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated a radio astronomy program called SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Less than a year later, Congress abruptly cancelled the program. Why? While there was and still is debate over the likelihood of finding intelligent extraterrestrial life, virtually all informed parties agreed that the SETI program constituted worthwhile, valid science. Yet, fervor over the federal budget deficit, lack of support from other scientists and aerospace contractors and a significant history of unfounded associations with nonscientific elements combined with bad timing in fall 1993 to make the program an easy target to eliminate. Thus SETI was a relative anomaly in terms of a small, scientifically valid program that was canceled for political expediency.
And then there’s this, from NASA’s Origins project…
Born of the extraordinary accomplishments of 20th century physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, the Origins program takes up the challenge of answering questions as old as our species. When Galileo first turned his tiny telescope to the night sky, he saw the Milky Way resolved into millions of stars, in one stroke expanding our grasp of the universe to a scale that had not been imagined from the sight of eyes alone. The growth of scientific culture and tools over the next three centuries revealed a vast realm, each at-first-incomprehensible discovery assimilated into an increasingly uncomfortable reality. The eruptive growth of 20th century astronomy has brought us an appreciation of how vast, old, and unearthly the universe is, and has left humanity struggling for a sense of our own significance consistent with the reality of who and what we are. But science has also given us something that will help, by promising answers to our ancient questions: Where did we come from? Are we alone? When the answers to these questions are known, our civilizations will evolve new visions of who we are and what our futures might be. Already we have learned enough to appreciate that the universe is enormous and ancient, but life tiny and transient is its precious jewel.
Your tax payer dollars at work.
Getting back to the rest of my post, I also mentioned three other scientific disciplines which you chose to ignore, going for what you thought would be a “quick kill” response.
Lothar: I can only tell you that I, as a Christian, would absolutely fight any attempt to purge evolutionary concepts from the science classroom. I completely disagree that the "how" would suffer, for reasons I've pointed out already. In the end, it's about keeping an open mind, and allowing academic freedom to explore all alternatives. I've read a lot from both sides, and discussed it extensively with others of both minds. My own experience has been quite different from yours, though I'll admit there are extremists in either camp. Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
-
Does anyone remember the main theme of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
-
Thus Spake Zarathustra
-
sweethearte' Midnight.
Just between us old farts...you KNEW what I meant!
;)
-
I won't tell if you won't.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Does anyone remember the main theme of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
It's Wagner, IIRC.
Doh... It's Strauss.
-
Lot of mafia types on the bbs today.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Love to see any references you have to actual scientists actually being burned....
Stop putting words in my mouth you liar.
-
"Alzo Sprach Zarathustra" -- Richard Strauss
"The Blue Danube" was the space docking scene... not the same Strauss.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How about after being convicted of heresy, being forced to stifle the truth and placed on house arrest for the rest of his life under threat of worse?
"But it does move" Galileo
But you wanted references to an actual burning....
How about
Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
No argument that the time was not generally open to new ideas. However, using for convenience the article you referenced, Dr. Bruno was repeatedly excluded from academic postions due to his academic beliefs going out of vogue. As this thread topic itself demonstrates, that is an occupational risk even now for academics. Less controversial beliefs can also make one persona non grata, as the recent experience of Harvard's president shows. (He had the incredible lack of PC savvy to raise as a topic for discussion the body of evidence implying that male and female brains may have statistically differnt strengths).
Also using your article, it appears clear that Dr. Bruno was killed for religious heresy, not for his scientific beliefs.
Although the actual charge against Bruno was docetism, adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion, the world of science has long claimed Bruno as a martyr.
This of course in no way justifies his murder for religious dissent -- but it does bring into question his being killed for scientific rigor.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Stop putting words in my mouth you liar.
Take a chill pill, dude.
Originally posted by FalconSix ...snip....
During the Dark Ages of Christian church rule in Europe science was outlawed as heresy and scientists persecuted as witches.
...snip....
I read your post, and didnt reread after typing mine. Since the standard "treatment" for witches in the middle ages was burning at the stake, I inadvertantly must have thought I read a phrase that wasnt there.
BUT you gotta admit, the stake sure was implied, and calling me a liar is... a bit unenlightened....in context. I in no way changed the meaning of your claim.
In fact, I let the silliness about "science being outlawed" slide right on by.
-
The Hispanic ascetic Priscillian of Avila was the first person to be executed for heresy, only sixty years after the First Council of Nicaea, in 385. He was executed at the orders of Emperor Magnus Maximus, over the procedural objections of bishops Ambrose of Milan and Martin of Tours, who claimed the Churches' right to punish its own.
Over the years, numerous Christian scholars and preachers have disagreed with the Church on various issues or doctrines. When the Church has become aware of these beliefs, they have been condemned as heretical, and with the East-West Schism finalized in the 11th century, and the split in the Western Church in the 16th, each section has identified the others as "heretical". Historically, this often happened when the belief challenged, or was seen to challenge, Church authority, or drew a movement of followers who challenged the established order socially. For entirely secular reasons, some influential people have had an interest in maintaining the status quo or condemning a group they wished to be removed. The Church's internal explanations for its actions were based purely on objection to beliefs and philosophies that ran contrary to its interpretation of the holy scriptures and its official interpretation of holy tradition.
The penalty for a baptized Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae) according to Can. 1364 par.1 C.I.C..
A belief that the church has not directly rejected, or that is at variance with less important church teachings, is given the label, sententia haeresi proxima, meaning "opinion approaching heresy." A theological argument, belief, or theory that does not constitute heresy in itself, but which leads to conclusions which might be held to do so, is termed propositio theologice erronea, or "erroneous theological proposition." Finally, if the theological position only suggests but does not necessarily lead to a doctrinal conflict, it might be given the even milder label of sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens, meaning "opinion suspected, or savoring, of heresy."
Some significant controversies of doctrine have risen over the course of history. At times there have been many heresies over single points of doctrine, particularly in regards to the nature of the Trinity, the doctrine of transubstantiation and the immaculate conception.
The Church has always fought in favor of orthodoxy and the Pope's authority as the successor of St. Peter to determine truth. At various times in history, it has had varying degrees of power to resist or punish heretics, once it had defined them.
In the early church, heresies were sometimes determined by a selected council of bishops, or ecumenical council, such as the First Council of Nicaea. The orthodox position was established at the council, and all who failed to adhere to it would thereafter be considered heretics. The church had little power to actually punish heretics in the early years, other than by excommunication, a spiritual punishment, or, as in the case of Arius, assassination. To those who accepted it, an excommunication was the worst form of punishment possible, as it separated the individual from the body of Christ, his Church, and prevented salvation. Excommunication, or even the threat of excommunication, was enough to convince many a heretic to renounce his views. Priscillian achieved the distinction of becoming the first Christian burned alive for heresy in 385 at Treves.
In later years, the Church instituted the Inquisition, an official body charged with the suppression of heresy. The Inquisition was active in several nations of Europe, particularly where it had fervent support from the civil authority. The Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229) was part of the Roman Catholic Church's efforts to crush the Cathars. It is linked to the movement now known as the Medieval Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal in its methods, which included the burning at the stake of many heretics. However, it was initiated and substantially controlled by King Ferdinand of Spain rather than the Church; King Ferdinand used political leverage to obtain the Church's tacit approval. Another example of a medieval heretic (according to some, proto-protestant) movement is the Hussite movement in the Czech lands in the early 1400s.
It is widely reported that the last person to be burned alive at the stake on orders from Rome was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600 for a collection of heretical beliefs including Copernicanism and (probably more important) an unlimited universe with innumerable inhabited worlds. The last case of an execution at an auto de fe by the Spanish Inquisition was the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll, accused of deism and executed by garroting July 26, 1826 in Valencia after a two-year trial.
-
Nice cut and paste skills, and I suppose there is a point beyond general anti-catholicism....I suppose..... :huh
The middle ages were jsut barely past the barbarian eras. Europeans before christianity sacrificed their kids and buried them at the cornerstones of city walls. Enemies skulls were prominently displayed over doorframes in Celtic lands. These were bad things.
Hurting people because of their religion is bad. Hurting people because they disagree with you is bad. Neither can be supported by christian principles or doctrine (and if you are honestly interested I can support that with references --). Bad people can call themselves christians, and bad people can get leadership roles in organizations.
If your hope is to somehow prove that christianity is the source of all evil, you're gunna have a tough row to hoe.
Does the existance of Al Sharpton and George Wallace prove that the Democratic Party is evil? They are/were leaders of the Democratic party! You Democrats need to justify their positions!
Pretty rediculous, eh.
Why do materialists use the same logic aginst christianity????
-
Originally posted by Simaril
...
Also using your article, it appears clear that Dr. Bruno was killed for religious heresy, not for his scientific beliefs.
After some more investigation, it appears we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records.
However the treatment of Galileo wasn't the best.
-
Aristotle had placed the Earth at the centre of the universe, not because it was the most important place, but because it was the coldest, most impure place in the cosmos and it would therefore fall as far as it could - to the centre. The celestial bodies were made out of a very pure and perfect element and travelled on the surface of spheres, the most perfect geometric shape.
The mediaeval Church adopted this system, and for Christians the Earth was central as being of the place of the cosmos’ salvation. Not surprisingly astronomical observation of the planets fitted only erratically with this Earth-centred (geocentric) scheme and complicated explanations were devised to overcome these anomalies. These were refinements on Ptolemy’s system (2nd Century CE). In the 1530s the Polish mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus began to challenge the Ptolemaic model and suggest a sun-centred (heliocentric) model; this was only published as Copernicus was dying (in his great book De Revolutionibus of 1543).
There followed a period of what T.S.Kuhn has called ‘paradigm shift,’ a crisis in the (newly developing) scientific community, in which two radically different models were in competition.Nor was it clear that Copernicus was right - his circular orbits gave no better fit than its best geocentric competitor - that of the Imperial mathematician Tycho Brahe. This is because the planetary orbits are in fact ellipses, a model first proposed by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who was one of the very few thinkers other than Galileo to adopt Copernicanism before 1600.
Wonder why? Giordano Bruno was executed for a collection of heretical beliefs including Copernicanism.
-
Falcon,
You're having the look of someone who knows what they think and is desperately thrashing around for confirmation. Your understanding of the middle ages seems entirely unidimensional, and honestly it looks like you're not even reading what you're posting.
Look at this:
The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal in its methods, which included the burning at the stake of many heretics. However, it was initiated and substantially controlled by King Ferdinand of Spain rather than the Church; King Ferdinand used political leverage to obtain the Church's tacit approval.
In modern culture, politicians cloak themselves in the flag to strngthen their position and power. In medieval times, it was the church.
What's more, you must remember that power hungry people migrate to power centers, and that meant the catholic church back then. Which means that a substantial number of priests and even popes called tehmselves christians but paid no attention to the teachings they supposedly believed.
Phillip of Spain was like Osama Bin Laden in his fervor and politics. (Not my compraison -- read it first in article in ?Military History?) To make it worse, he ran the greatest and richest power on earth, equivalent to USA now -- but without the EU and China to balance. The Inquisition (and his religious wars in the netherlands) were the expected result.
BTW, you mentioned Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- and correctly remembered that he coined the phrase paradigm shift. The book may be particularly applicable to the thread overall -- one of his observations was that when new theories are proposed, which could replace common scientific wisdom, they generally are not accepted by those with vested interest in the old ways. Once the old scientists die off, teh young guns hold the field with the new ideas....
-
Originally posted by Simaril
In modern culture, politicians cloak themselves in the flag to strngthen their position and power. In medieval times, it was the church.
What's more, you must remember that power hungry people migrate to power centers, and that meant the catholic church back then. Which means that a substantial number of priests and even popes called tehmselves christians but paid no attention to the teachings they supposedly believed.
You only confirm my point. No matter who was responsible be it a king or a priest, Christianity was still the tool of oppression. Religion has always been a tool to control simpleminded people, and still is. Religion is the curse of humanity, the tool of the smart to control and exploit the stupid.
-
That's human nature, not religion.
Like saying guns kill people or inanimate objects are stupid.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
You only confirm my point. No matter who was responsible be it a king or a priest, Christianity was still the tool of oppression. Religion has always been a tool to control simpleminded people, and still is. Religion is the curse of humanity, the tool of the smart to control and exploit the stupid.
C-
Falcon, you're in over your head -- and its not just me saying it. Look at Moot's point -- you're getting a little silly.
Debate requires establishing a foundation, building evidence step by step by presenting pertinent info and analysis, and drawing conclusions justified by the data presented.
You have not done this in a single one of your posts. You have not debated, you have vented bigotry.
Your conclusion above is absolutely not supported by the preceding staements; you layed no logical ground. Your preceding post -- about (in the most general sense) Bruno -- claimed that complex events in the history of science were caused by the execution of a heretic, but you provided absolutely no evidence to support your conclusion. The post before THAT was a cut-and-paste history of medieval history that actually contradicted what you apparently thought your point was.
I'm not trying to slam you, bud -- but if you want to participate in a discussion you're gunna have to raise the bar above the hate speech you've relied on so far.
If you cant get to that level -- well, I'm not going to waste my time tryign to reason with bigotry.
-
Originally posted by moot
That's human nature, not religion.
Like saying guns kill people or inanimate objects are stupid.
Religion is human made, and therefore reflect human nature.
Originally posted by Simaril
Blablablapersonalattackblabla bla
Whatever.
-
It’s interesting that Falcon should bring up religion in this discussion, which is after all about the suppression of ideas that are considered heretical by the established dogma of an elitist group who find themselves more and more on the defensive against those ideas. I’ve watched numerous debates on various television news programs (NPR, Fox, CNN, MSNBC). In every one, they pit an evolutionist against an ID proponent. And in every one of those debates (I use the term loosely here), one of the parties is calm and reasoned, presenting their position passionately, but lucidly; they make appeals to scientific reason and logic, admitting what they know and what they don’t. The other side spends most of their air-time making ad hominid attacks, alternating between belittling and condescending remarks about their opponent; their energy generally goes beyond simple passion, into the realm of fanaticism, bringing up God and religion, and in general attacking both the credentials and the motives behind their opponent’s position. Now, from these two descriptions can you guess which is which?
Sternberg is not the only scientist to suffer the Darwinian Inquisition. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet has suffered similar attacks, as have numerous others (see http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050831/LIFE/%20508310325/1001/LIFE ). Dr. Gonzales wrote this book outside of his teaching duties, and has nowhere in his classroom instructions brought in ID.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Whatever.
heehee