Evolution and Intelligent design

[AuHg]

What are your thoughts on this issue??

Personally, although I am brought up in a Christian family. I dont believe a word in genesis, because I am an agnostic/atheist whatever.

So, this throws out the intelligent design for me.

But, I dont really know about evolution either and I dont really care. But, genetics and biochemistry all makes sense and are well tested. So, at least there is that scientific backing evidence.

I was watching ABC recently, they had a report on Intelligent design. There is a priest/reverend in the US. He built a Christian genesis museum and I cant believe it, he says back in early human existence it was co-existing with the dinosaurs. I was like NOOOOOO. Sorry, if we were living with dinosaurs I wont be able to type this thread so MAP users can read it. I think humans will be eaten to extinction by dinosaurs if that was true.

Seriously, just look at Jurassic Park, did the actors have a chance with the T-rex, I dont think so. Unless, us humans were as numerous as the insect kingdom so even a couple hundreds or thousands face their death each day, we would still be around to bring forth future offsprings.

What do you think?

[Gary]

I think it is appropriate that the churches arguement has 'evolved' into intelligent design :)

[Yossarian]

I know what you mean, i saw a priest on tv talking about how Noah brought Dinosours aboard the ark. According to the fossil record there were only small mammals around at the time of Dinosours. The first primate a small mouse like animal(Purgatorius) coexisted with Dinosours for a while during the cretaceous period. If you believe in that sort of thing of course.

[Strafio]

Proper Intelligent deisgn probably has some genuine merit to it (I've yet to get onto the texts that Aikimac recommended to me) but the version they're teaching in schools is a bit skewed.

For a start it's being taught as an alternative to evolution.
Proper ID leaves the possibility of evolution as the tool the designer used.
Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if they were encouraging teachers to claim that ID means Genesis happened, when all ID proves is that some sort of God did something.

I think if there's one thing that biblical creationists really push is how they deny carbon dating, claiming that the world is only 6000 years old. I've not really read how they try to get around that one but I can imagine it being a bit... :confused:

[Aegis]

Proper Intelligent deisgn probably has some genuine merit to it (I've yet to get onto the texts that Aikimac recommended to me) but the version they're teaching in schools is a bit skewed.

For a start it's being taught as an alternative to evolution.
Proper ID leaves the possibility of evolution as the tool the designer used.
Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if they were encouraging teachers to claim that ID means Genesis happened, when all ID proves is that some sort of God did something.

The big problem with teaching ID in science classes isn't that it's an alternative theory to evolution or that it supports religion, it's the fact that in the scientific definition of the word "theory" it isn't one. As such, it's nothing more than unverified conjecture which belongs in a philosophy or world religions class, not in science classes.

The other major problem with ID is that one of the biggest pushers of ID, the Discovery Institute, accidentally leaked a document which has now been nicknamed the "Wedge Strategy" by many of the opposers of ID because it details a plan of how getting ID into kids classrooms was only the first step towards teaching them christianity, specifically creationism, and overthrowing evolution through politics rather than through the scientific method, which they have already failed to do on several occasions.

I think if there's one thing that biblical creationists really push is how they deny carbon dating, claiming that the world is only 6000 years old. I've not really read how they try to get around that one but I can imagine it being a bit... :confused:

I've seen all sorts of explanations for different rates of decay, etc, but none of them hold water. For example, Kent Hovind is a big fan of the "C-14 never reached an atmospheric steady state in the past, so it overreads", which completely ignores the amazing coorelation between C-14 dating and tree-ring dating, or varve dating, or other radioisotope dating for the far end of the C-14 dating scale.

Most of the time it boils down to "god did it" in the end, which is of course not a scientific view and doesn't really hold any weight when trying to disprove a scientific theory.

Of course, this is not to say that science has all the answers, but it is an investigation of the natural world with the assumption that all occurances have explanations and leave evidence.

[Agutrot-]

I think zues shaped our looks, RA gave us fire, and Oden gave us wisdom.... Honestly don't people see the pattern of religion turning into mythology? Catholics are the worst of all of them. I even grew up in a Catholic family and i think its ridiculous. Do you have any idea how much stuff the church makes up? The Constantine Document? Jesus is a god not man? Said in church is true in heaven? hmmmmm.... suspicious. Whenever trends change the churc fabricates a new lie to keep people loyal to them. Religion is for fat people who need something to beleive in.

So I'll say evolution.

[Strafio]

Catholics aren't so bad, see? (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43081)

I think that fundamentalism is a little annoying but people have the right to be so.
C'est la vie! :)

[justinksw]

In my humble opinion, ID is gibberish that certain fundamentalists are trying to force into the classrooms of our children. It has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever. It falls under the old "well, we can't explain it guys, so obviously God did it!". I really love how the folks pushing it in Kansas are even denying they are trying to say it's God, but rather 'some higher power'. Give me a freakin break.

Evolution is a theory, but it has much evidence to prove the theories involved with it. Show me ONE bit of evidence that supports ID. You will not find a bit (don't even try to say Genesis).

[bum-eyes]

I know what you mean, i saw a priest on tv talking about how Noah brought Dinosours aboard the ark. According to the fossil record there were only small mammals around at the time of Dinosours. The first primate a small mouse like animal(Purgatorius) coexisted with Dinosours for a while during the cretaceous period. If you believe in that sort of thing of course.
Fossil records are bull. A complete lie. No basis in fact whatsoever.

[bum-eyes]

Intelligent design can be explained. For the most part, at least. Ask away but don't expect me to allways hang off this thread. I plan on sleeping someday soon.

[Strafio]

Fossil records are bull. A complete lie. No basis in fact whatsoever.
Well that convinced me, ;) but for the more sceptical among us, perhaps you could explain in what way they're complete bull and baseless lies.
If I get round to it, I'll try explain why ID is philosophy rather than science.

[Yossarian]

I'd like to know as well.

My thoughts on the ID issue. I am amazed that in this day and age this debate is happening in the most advanced country in the world. Religious arguments should be kept out of science classes. Are peoples faiths so flimsy that teaching them evolution will turn them into aithiests? Teach the kids evolution in biology class and creationism in religous studies/church and let them make up thier own minds on whats true.

[bum-eyes]

I mean the fossil record was made up. It's an excuse to use curcular reasoning. Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil.

[Strafio]

Ah... if that's how you thought they judge the ages of things then it's very circular.
I'm not sure on all the techniques but some involved carbon dating (for remains) to test how much Carbon 14 has decayed since the creature died.
Rock dating can use things like "how long it takes for such and such rock to form by being compacted by sediment above it.

It happens that I finished with geography when I was 14 years old so I'm so certain of specifics. Perhaps someone who does know could share with us.

[Yossarian]

Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil

How do they tell the age of rocks with no fossils in them?

[justinksw]

I mean the fossil record was made up. It's an excuse to use curcular reasoning. Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil.
Oh yeah, they all have this big conspiracy against the world where they go around making up dates for rocks.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on how they determine the age of items before you make a comment like that. I for one am no geological expert, but I would do my homework first.

So are the (so-called) fossils of man and dinosaur walking together real to you? They would definitely support your ID.

The only time man and dinosaur have been together is in a museum or a dig site, and every time the dinosaur has been dead.

[bum-eyes]

How do they tell the age of rocks with no fossils in them?
You take a look at where the rock is in the layers. Which poses a problem if the rock is limestone, for example. It appears multiple times in the fossil record.

Did I mention someone made it up?

[bum-eyes]

Carbon dating, radiometric dating, and all that crap are in no way accurate.

When these dating methods are used on objects of a known age, they are very rarely accurate. When they are used on objects of a known age, thay are assumed to be accurate.

[Matthew Barnes]

I mean the fossil record was made up. It's an excuse to use curcular reasoning. Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil.


He's right. The fact that carbon dating works predictably and repeatably is mere coincidence. Documents at this site (http://www.venganza.org) explain clearly how an outside force makes this happen.

After I read the materials there, it all became clear how intelligent design can exist even when all the scientific evidence points to evolution.

Matt

[bum-eyes]

After I read the materials there, it all became clear how intelligent design can exist even when all the scientific evidence points to evolution.

MattWhich it doesn't.

[Strafio]

Carbon dating, radiometric dating, and all that crap are in no way accurate.

When these dating methods are used on objects of a known age, they are very rarely accurate. When they are used on objects of a known age, thay are assumed to be accurate.
Depends what you mean by accurate.
A metre stick can't accurately measure a pin head to the nearest micrometre but can measure a room to the nearest centimetre.

Carbon dating is exponential so can't measure to the nearest year at "close range", thousand year at "medium range" or even million year at a "longer range" but can tell us at the least what range it is. So we can clearly tell the difference between something that's a few thousand years old and something that's a few million years old.

[Gary]

:confused: I don't know which posts are sarcasm anymore.

Evolution exists. Put a bacterial sample in a toxic environment and leave it for a 100 generations. Voila! Resistant bacteria. Oh wait, we already did this in our hospitals, it's called MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), our very own antibiotic resistant forms of staphylococcus. It's true people, we can watch evolution as it happens. Evolution remains the best and longest proven theory in our history purely through religous pressure.

On a second note, it's interesting how much proof an establishment based on faith wants from the evolutionists.

[blessed_samurai]

I'm not an expert on evolution but I know that the more this is brought up as a discussion in kinesiology classes a lot of the professors have a problem with this theory. The problem that they see revolves around the spine of man.

[Aegis]

I mean the fossil record was made up. It's an excuse to use curcular reasoning. Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil.
Have you ever actually asked an expert? My guess would be no, because an expert will tell you that some rock layers are dated accurately by use of one or more standard dating techniques (for more information on a large number of these techniques, do a search for radioisotope dating). Fossils in that rock formation are then dated the same age as the rock.

However (and this is a very important note to make to avoid the circular reasoning accusation), some fossils are only ever found to be present in rocks dating froma certain age band, which allows other rocks to be dated using those fossils. However, there are also periodic checks of the date of these rocks through the original radiotisotope dating methods, so the process is not circular regardless of what some creationists would have you believe. It should also be noted that certain creationists (Kent Hovind, aka Dr Dino springs to mind) are quite happy to attack subjects about which they haven't got the first clue while pretending to know a lot. This can sound very convincing, especially if such a person is a persuasive speaker. The golden rule for this sort of thing is to actuall ask an expert.

I did, I asked my freind from university who is currently doing a PhD in Geology. The things she said about such claims could not be repeated on MAP.

[Aegis]

I'm not an expert on evolution but I know that the more this is brought up as a discussion in kinesiology classes a lot of the professors have a problem with this theory. The problem that they see revolves around the spine of man.
Is this the problem that it clearly isn't optimally designed for upright walking? :D

I'm sure I heard that one elsewhere, but I can't really comment on it any further than that without going looking for the reference. Which would be tough, but I could give it a go...

[Strafio]

I once read an article where if the human body had been built to last that there's be a number of changes. The knees, for example, would bend the other way. This would make us less mobile but put less pressure on our knees that wears them out.

They figured that the body was optimised to survive long enough to mate rather than to last a long time. There's also talk about how our eyes have weaknesses through "bad design", which gives us enough vision for survival but if we were going for perfection...

Ofcourse, the creationist would argue that we were perfect before we ate those darned apples...

[Gary]

They figured that the body was optimised to survive long enough to mate rather than to last a long time. There's also talk about how our eyes have weaknesses through "bad design", which gives us enough vision for survival but if we were going for perfection...

Of course the body only survives until you mate, that's all it needs to do. That's why we end up with so many problems as we get older, we've already passed on our genes by then (hopefully), so evolution doesn't affect old age problems. With the eye, you need to remember that evolution hasn't finished, it's kind of an ongoing thing, so any arguements that something could be better are redundant. In the case of the eye, it's already had to do a hell of a lot of development to get to where it is, even if in modern society there's less of a selection pressure for good eyesight, it's still developing. The same goes for our back, we've been walking upright for almost 4 million years, yet that often only leads to problems as you're past your sexual peak.

[Strafio]

I know. I was sort of pointing out possible flaws in ID.
The fact that we can cite improvements to our bodies means that our designer can't have been that intelligent...

[justinksw]

Did I mention someone made it up?
Yes you did; I believe it was here...

I mean the fossil record was made up. It's an excuse to use curcular reasoning. Ask an expert how old a rock is, he'll look at the fossil in it and make a judgement from that. Guess what happens when you ask an expert on fossils how he knows the age of a fossil.
Strafio put it best as to why carbon dating is in fact 'accurate'. It may not be accurate as in 'to the year' but it definitely gives us a ballpark figure of the age of something. You will find that MOST of these rocks end up being much older than 6000 years.

[Aegis]

Yes you did; I believe it was here...


Strafio put it best as to why carbon dating is in fact 'accurate'. It may not be accurate as in 'to the year' but it definitely gives us a ballpark figure of the age of something. You will find that MOST of these rocks end up being much older than 6000 years.
Personally I didn't think carbon dating worked on rocks because of its lack of carbon compounds which were exchanged with the atmosphere while living ;)

carbon dating is used on ex-living matter which has had no chance since it died to take up more C-14 from the atmosphere. Of course, there are other criteria too, such as the maximum age of the specimen (about 60k years) and the type of specimen (deep aquatic creatures give very bad readings because they take up decayed carbon from non-atmospheric sources underwater, for example, and therefore appear older than they are)

[justinksw]

Personally I didn't think carbon dating worked on rocks because of its lack of carbon compounds which were exchanged with the atmosphere while living ;)
I have to apologize here... I didn't mean to throw the age of rocks into the same paragraph as carbon dating. I understand that all living creatures start out at some level of C-14 when they die and an age can be determined from the amount remaining.... blah blah blah.

All I meant to say is that by using age-determining methods on rocks (which is not Carbon dating) you would find that they are definitely older than 6000 years.

That's what I get for trying to make too many points in the same post. :D

[Aegis]

I have to apologize here... I didn't mean to throw the age of rocks into the same paragraph as carbon dating. I understand that all living creatures start out at some level of C-14 when they die and an age can be determined from the amount remaining.... blah blah blah.

All I meant to say is that by using age-determining methods on rocks (which is not Carbon dating) you would find that they are definitely older than 6000 years.

That's what I get for trying to make too many points in the same post. :D
No worries, I was just pointing it out before someone else did :D

[bum-eyes]

:confused: I don't know which posts are sarcasm anymore.

Evolution exists. Put a bacterial sample in a toxic environment and leave it for a 100 generations. Voila! Resistant bacteria. Oh wait, we already did this in our hospitals, it's called MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), our very own antibiotic resistant forms of staphylococcus. It's true people, we can watch evolution as it happens.I would call that micro-evolution. You start with bacteria, you end with bacteria. Still a very similar kind of creature.

If you started with bacteria, and ended up with a tadpole, that would be something. So far no animal has been recorded as spawning from a different type of animal. No horse has ever been born to a cow.

[Infrazael]

I would call that micro-evolution. You start with bacteria, you end with bacteria. Still a very similar kind of creature.

If you started with bacteria, and ended up with a tadpole, that would be something. So far no animal has been recorded as spawning from a different type of animal. No horse has ever been born to a cow.

Kid, that's because it takes millions of years lol.

Hey, anyone asked Wrydolphin to come here yet? She's a biology professor or something. . . . I'll PM her.

[Aegis]

I would call that micro-evolution. You start with bacteria, you end with bacteria. Still a very similar kind of creature.

Correct, as long as you define microevolotion as change below the species level. However, "species" when referring to bacteria and other asexual organisms is quite a tricky one to define.

However, speciation (what you would call macroevolution) has been observed in labs with fruit flies and plants, and can also be inferred by evidences of past changes, not least of which are the fossil record (not false, as I already explained) and Endiginous Retroviruses (ERVs).

If you started with bacteria, and ended up with a tadpole, that would be something.

Observing such an event would constuitute hyperevolution, and would probably require hundreds of thousands of years even at an artificially accelerated rate, and even then your chances of getting anything remotely similar to current lifeforms would be miniscule.

So far no animal has been recorded as spawning from a different type of animal. No horse has ever been born to a cow.

This is what's referred to as a "straw man". A horse giving birth to a cow, or vice versa, would actually DISprove evolution, not support it. This is another common misconception which has been propagated by creationists who don't understand enough of the subject to realise that this would actually do much more harm than good to evolutionary theory in terms of scientific discovery.

[Infrazael]

The only way to answer this kind of person is. . . . .

Official Flame Form for MAP

==================================

Dear:

[X] Clueless Newbie
[X] Loser
[ ] Previously Banned Member
[ ] Bruce Lee Wannabee
[X] Troll
[X] Spammer
[X] 13 year old l337 d00d
[X] Flamer
[X] Whiner
[X] Book Taught Loonie

You Are Being Flamed Because:

[ ] You posted a Style Vs Thread
[ ] You posted a personal attack against a mod
[ ] You should have used the Search Feature
[ ] You posted the Real Ultimate Power site again
[ ] You posted a thread in Ninjitsu asking about smoke bombs/night training
[ ] You posted a MMA Spoiler in Traditional Healing
[ ] You posted a thread stating you can run up walls
[ ] You posted a 'Jet Li vs. Bruce Lee vs. Austin Powers vs. Superman vs. Godzilla vs. Oprah vs. That homeless guy down the street' thread"
[ ] You posted an OMG The Sky is Falling thread
[ ] You ressurected a long dead, stupid thread
[X] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You flamed someone and got burnt
[ ] You posted a thread on Dux Ninjitsu
[ ] You haven't read the stickies
[ ] You asked why you can't get into the arcade on your first post
[ ] You typed in text/leet speak
[X] You posted false information then refused to back it up.
[ ] You posted a video/site we've all seen a thousand times before
[X] You posted wildly ridiculous claims, refused to back them up, and had a strop when we asked for proof.

In Punishment, You Must:

[ ] Take down all your Bruce Lee posters
[ ] Stop posting and go to class 3 times a week
[X] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the Damn FAQ
[X] Go to your room with no supper
[X] Apologize to everybody on this forum (execpt KnightCommander, who loves it!)
[X] Stand in the Sin Bin and do kata till you die of boredom
[ ] All of the above

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ ] Learn to type using ALL the correct letters.
[X] Welcome to last week.
[X] Press Alt and F4.
[ ] Can I have your stuff?
[X] Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
[X] All your base are belong to us. Go every Zig.
[X] Stop posting STUPID crap.
[ ] All of the above.

==============================================

The preceding Forum Form Flame was constructed for use on people not worthy
of actual thought or effort in being flamed. People so STOOPID that a
simple copy/paste and a few check marks is all that's necessary to properly
relay the flamer's contempt for the flamee.

You have been identified as such a person and as such, this flame
was brought to you in under 10 seconds.

Sucks to be you.

[justinksw]

Lol!

[Aegis]

Actually I preferred my answers :p

[bum-eyes]

Where's all the fossils of half-evolved animals?

[Ikken Hisatsu]

in museums? is that a trick question or did you just fail REAL badly at school?

[Unisonus]

Where's all the fossils of half-evolved animals?

LOL.

[wrydolphin]

Where's all the fossils of half-evolved animals?
Try doing some research. Look up whale evolution as it is one of the few that followed a Darwinian evolutionary tract. Sharks and horses also have some great mid-way species. The thing is, species as defined by humans is not something this is really recognized by the animal kingdoms. Animals tend to breed with the animal they imprint upon when they are young. Dogs breed with dog like organisms, because their mother was a dog. There are several problems that are occuring in zoos that attempted to foster out endangered birds because the young attempt to mate with birds that look like the ones who raised them. But then, we are sliding into the world of animal behaivor and that's never been my forte. Back to evolutionary theory.

Most of your missing links are hard to find because of a phenomenon called "punctuated equilibrium". This is the theory that species under go extended periods of stability and rapid periods of change, thus reducing the chance of the "missing link" organism being deposited and found in the fossil record. As such, it is remarkable not that so few missing link species are found in the fossil record, but that so many are found.

I was going to address carbon and radioactive dating, but it has been covered very well already. So kudos to you guys. :D

Microevolution is evolution. I don't know why creationists decide that it is ok, when they are so afraid of macroevolution. Allow microevolution to go on long enough, it leads to macroevolution. And yes, speciation has occured during recorded human time spans. Don't believe it? Look around in your back yard or you neighbors and you will find the greatest paracite known to man, AKA Fido. The dog has evolved around human settlements and from the wolf-like creature to the placid, grinning playmate you see before you today. While we have shaped the dog in more recent years, the dog was acctually probably associated with humans long before taming or domestication.

I would quit before I had to teach ID in my classroom, because to say that evolution as defined by science did not occur is to lie to my students. I am not paid to teach religion or to lie.

[Tyranith]

Isn't it obvious by now? The world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All dating methods are manipulated by His noodly appendage to appear much older than they are.

Source: www.venganza.org

[Koryo]

Bum=eyes, The main problem with asking about "half evolved animals" is that in doing so you're making a false asumption about evolution, namely that it has a "beginning" and an "end." If you want to see a half evolved animal just look in the mirror. Humans are the halfway point between the animals we evolved from and the animals we'll evolve into. This is true of all species (asuming of course that they don't become extinct). Since evolution is an ongoing process, all species are "half evolved."

[Chimpcheng]

I would call that micro-evolution. You start with bacteria, you end with bacteria. Still a very similar kind of creature.

If you started with bacteria, and ended up with a tadpole, that would be something. So far no animal has been recorded as spawning from a different type of animal. No horse has ever been born to a cow.

Micoevolution, as wrydolphin correctly pointed out, IS evolution, it doesn't matter at what scale it is at, it is still evolution. I am having difficulty working out why you dismiss it outright. :confused: The bacteria to which you are refering to have 'changed' i.e. evolved into something they weren't a few generations ago.

Evolution isn't just about morphological changes in the case of your so-called bacteria to tadpole or your highly ridiculous horse/cow scenario. If you truly believed that evolution is simply a 'change' to look like something else then you have totally disregarded the lepidopteran mimicry rings of South America.

On an incredibly simple level, here, butterflies of one species have evolved to mimic the behaviour/morphology/colouration/etc, of other butterflies.

Evolution isn't as simple as 'looking' like something else, which is what you seem to be arguing, it is about 'acquiring' new functions (very, very simply put - mutations). For example, the skies remained empty for millions of years, then evolved insects which took to the air in their millions, birds eventually evolved, even mammals have had a stab at it. These very different groups of animals 'acquired' a new evolutionary function - wings (convergent evolution).

You can see the evolutionary acquisition of new functions not only in microorganisms e.g., the antibotic resistant bacteria, but also in metazoans. Look at all the insects that have become resistant to insecticides; countless animals and plants have become disease resistant; amphibians such as frogs and newts have evolved tolerance to the acidification os their natural habitats; crustaceans have evolved new defences to combat predators. All of this has occurred during our 'life-time'.

Ooooh this is my 500th post. I'm closing in fast on my 1000th. :D

:Angel:

[Wynnston]

Much credit to the thread originator - I was going to start one on this topic but couldn't find a way of saying what I wanted to say without violating all of MAP's code of conduct in one post :D To summarise;

ID is not a scientific theory, it is religious position that is masquerading as science. It has no scientific basis whatsoever and is a cynical ploy by fundamentalist christians to find a way of pushing their creationist beliefs into the science curriculum to elbow out evolution. You could argue that ID proponents are pursuing an evolutionary path by mimicry and exploitation of un-used fertile ground (peoples ignorance of what science actually is) to defeat a competitor.

Micro evolution is evolution. I'm not a biologist but I do have a PhD in Geology and the two disciplines compliment one another quite well. Darwin used a first class scientific mind coupled with acute observation to develope a theory. It challenged some fundamental assumptions held by society at the time which caused him much public ridicule. However, science has no formal way of addressing religion or creation, it doesn't seek to prove or disprove the existance of God as it can only address observed phenomena and the processes that cause them. Religion is based on faith which science cannot address. This exposes a fundamental flaw in the ID argment as it starts with the conjecture that things are too complex for evolution therefore an intelligent designer must have created them. That is not an observation it is a faith stance that then seeks to find evidence for itself. Therefore it cannot be science.

As someone has pointed out (Aegis?) you don't have to date every single rock layer, just enough to get a reference frame and use fossils to work out the rest. The use of fossils isn't perfect as you have to make certain assumptions about what happened (rate of evolution, rate of geographic spread of a certain species or group etc). Limestone appears at several points in the geological record because plate tectonics moves the continents around climate zones allowing different rock types to accrete over time.

Science seeks to describe in formal terms the word around us. The aim is get to a point where a scientific theory can not only describe observed phenomena but can predict unseen phenomena. A theory is only as good as it's last successful prediction. If the predictions fail then the theory needs revising or replacing. It should be noted that some scientists are myopic and partisan when it comes to defending their pet theories past the point where they should be discarded. However, we're all human.

If you want to see what happens when religious dogma usurps science look at what has happened to the Islamic countries. A few centuries ago they were progressive and successful societies with a lot of technology and science to their credit. Now many of them force their students to not only spend vast amounts of time learning the Koran by heart but use it to interpret all facets of their life. If you restict scientists to interpret their findings by the light of current religious dogma you get stagnation at best and a backward slide at worst. The Catholic church was eventually forced to admit that the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way round but not before huge amounts of persecution for those who proposed and believed the opposite.

By far the biggest challenge facing science is how it fits into society as a whole. Through curiosity or naked ambition, scientists want to explain and describe the world. Through that knowledge comes technology which enables humanity to gain more control over it's environment. Sometimes that technology is used for good (lighting, water purification etc), sometimes it's used for bad (weapons of mass destruction). It's up to us to use what science finds out in a responsible way. The smoke and mirrors of ID and similar ignorant stances only obscures these issues and seeks to drag us all back to the dark ages.

Bum eyes, I sincerely hope you're either winding everyone up or that you will someday realise your position of ignorance and seek to address it.

Thankyou all for your patience :D

[AuHg]

hi wynnston,

I didnt know this sort of thread would violate MAP forum policy. I thought this is a topical issue and wanted know what ppl think.

thanks alot ppl...bum eyes go read a book on general science.

[Wynnston]

The subject matter is fine, it was how I was thinking of expressing my views on ID that could have caused the problems :D

[Aegis]

The subject matter is fine, it was how I was thinking of expressing my views on ID that could have caused the problems :D
I get that way a lot too... In reality I'm a lot less tolerant of ID and the idea of religion being forced into science classes through politics rather than investigation. You learn that a forum isn't the best place to express your anger, least of all a place like this with oppressive mods (well, me anyway).

The best place for really hardcore rants is in chatrooms, other than MAP chat of course. :D

[Wynnston]

Aegis, my post sums up my thinking but as you say, it could be put a lot more forcefully :D

Unfortunately we can't really have a debate with the ID supporters as we're using 2 different languages. We're speaking science and they're speaking religion. The problem is that a lot of people can't tell the difference if religion is presented in the way ID has been, and that ignorance is what is being exploited. Some fundamentalist Christians think that evolution is wrong because their interpretation of the bible makes it so. Therefore they feel justified using any means necessary to fight evolutionary theory including proposing a fake scientific theory.

Let's also make it clear that true science doesn't favour or champion one theory over another. Some theories last because they do a good job of describing the world and predicting processes and phenomena. If a better scientific theory than evolution was proposed that fitted the data better and predicted more things then evolution would or should be replaced. Right now nothing has come along to replace it. But, ID proponents recognise that scientific theories can be replaced and are seeking to exploit that openness by proposing ID.

Finally, I have worked with a few creationists and some of them are very good engineers who have a good grasp of mathematics (well better than me anyway :D ). I find that really puzzling as it implies an almost schizophrenic approach to science. It didn't seem to cause them any bother - their world view made perfect sense to them!

[jonmonk]

If you want to see what happens when religious dogma usurps science look at what has happened to the Islamic countries. A few centuries ago they were progressive and successful societies with a lot of technology and science to their credit. Now many of them force their students to not only spend vast amounts of time learning the Koran by heart but use it to interpret all facets of their life.To be fair though, it's not all Islamic schools that are like that although I'm sure you weren't trying to imply that they were :)

What intrigues me is what would appear to be a a disturbing parallel between the way certain people are trying to get ID into schools in the US and the similar way in which these 'Islamic' schools operate, some of which wind up producing suicide bombers.

Finally, I have worked with a few creationists and some of them are very good engineers who have a good grasp of mathematics (well better than me anyway ). I find that really puzzling as it implies an almost schizophrenic approach to science. It didn't seem to cause them any bother - their world view made perfect sense to them!That's pretty cool I think. I wonder if it's that they are able to blend their spiritual 'reality' into their everyday life and come up with something that balances out for themselves.

[bod]

if anyone would like to hear ID get completely blown away then http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050810_a_main.asp

Richard Dawkins is the man : )

[Infrazael]

Aegis, I actually preferred the Flame Form.

Because Bum-Eyes is not going to change whatsoever.

That's why we need survival of the fittest, to remove people like him from the gene-pool!!! :D :woo:

j/k lol.

[wrydolphin]

Bod-

Excellent link, I enjoyed Dawkins hammering the poor callers. :)

[AuHg]

Thanks bod, great link. Richard Dawkins is a funny man, I like him already.

Listening to this, I was imagining a boxing bout between UK representative and US reprentative to fight it out.

Some Australian representative is bringing ID into classrooms....AHHH!!

If ID is a curriculum in future classrooms....this really throws out all my training to be a scientist.

This reminds of the Chewbacca defense in South Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

Here goes the whole speech LOL

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!


But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! (Background: Damnit! What? He's using the Chewbacca defense!) Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!


But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense.


Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!


And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... Does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.


If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.


:D :D :D

[firecoins]

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy111505.shtml

[Topher]

I don’t know specific details but I remember hearing about creatures/animals being placed in totally uninhabitable environments (i.e. marine or desert) and adapting accordingly to survive there.

The problem with creationism is they only discredit widely regarded scientific facts/truth with their religious hopes and the old “god did it” ploy. Where as science has real material (often physical) to base there analysis on.

The thing I find most funny is the creationists often use science to try and discredit science :eek: :rolleyes:

[Wynnston]

To be fair though, it's not all Islamic schools that are like that although I'm sure you weren't trying to imply that they were :)


No I'm not, which is why I said many instead of all. In particular I was thinking of schools like the madrassas.

Great radio link from Bod "You might as well have an evolutionary biologist debating the stork theory of where babies come from". :D Is it only me or does George Gilder sound a lot like Jack Nicholson?

If I was a rational American I would be very worried that my country's president wants ID taught alongside evolutionary theory. I would be even more worried if I lived in Kansas and would probably start looking for evidence of the construction of ducking stools for "recalcitrant" biologists and geologists. Why is it that many church leaders around the world can accept evolutionary theory but a large number of religious American people cannot?

Here's another link:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

The Peppered Moth article is good as it highlights the fact that science presents a constantly evolving series of ideas and theories that take what went before and either refine it or replace it. Religious based stances cannot do that as they are rooted in interpretations of supposedly universal truths represented in texts like the Bible. This leads to the question as to which interpretation of the Bible is correct and how do you prove it? That in turn leads to the even bigger question of which religion is correct - they can't all be right so how do you prove one is right and the rest are wrong?

[Topher]

Totally owned :D

What Dawkins said is totally right. How can you reject one theory for being way to complex (evolution), only to replace it with an when more complex idea (an intelligent designer).

And if an intelligent designer was needed to created life, who created the intelligent designer, and so on. This idea is never ending. It just replaces one question with another.

[AuHg]

In the old days, just to piss off genesis believers. I always asked them this question:

If dinosaurs and humans (only Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden) were living together wouldnt the dinosaurs have eaten humans already?

The best answer I got from a believer was, Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden and the dinosaurs lived outside the garden.

Ohhh!!! So, I suppose ID does make sense when if you believe all the dinosaurs lived outside of Eden.

MAKE SENSE! :o

Until, they ate the sinful apple and was banished....you know the rest. Then, they saw T-rex looking for food and Adam got a spear threw it and had their first T-rex steak. :D

[Chimpcheng]

I studied zoology at university where one of the main professors knew his evolutionarytheory inside and out. However, what used to confuse me was the fact that he was also a devout Christian.

I just didn't understand how the two could coexist - religion and science. However, during a drinking session ( :Angel: ) I decided to quiz him on it. He told me that he was brought up a Christian and will always be a Christian but that the bible is not meant to be taken literally and that it was ridiculous and and quite frankly ignorant (his words not mine) to believe in it word for word.

[Devoken]

How do they tell the age of rocks with no fossils in them?

Pottasium Argon.

[wrydolphin]

Having had many chances to practice this debate, living in a conservative town and all, I have come to the conclusion that people who are afraid of evolution and it being an actual scientific fact, have little to no faith in God.

[AuHg]

Pottasium Argon.

how does that work, im intrigued?

As Richard Dawkins pointed out, alot of ppl are ignorant about science in general.

So, education, education, education as he said it.

[wrydolphin]

I wanted to post a link that might explain better then I can about argon dating, but when I did the search here at work, it was blocked for "personals". :eek:

Basically it has to do with deposition of radioactive argon. Once the argon is deposited, it begins to degrade. That rate of degredation is constant so you can date the rocks based upon how much radioactive argon is left. I will try to post a better link to an explanation later when I am no longer oddly censored.

[Infrazael]

I wanted to post a link that might explain better then I can about argon dating, but when I did the search here at work, it was blocked for "personals". :eek:

Basically it has to do with deposition of radioactive argon. Once the argon is deposited, it begins to degrade. That rate of degredation is constant so you can date the rocks based upon how much radioactive argon is left. I will try to post a better link to an explanation later when I am no longer oddly censored.

WRY, I'll let you on a little secret we students like to use at school.

It's called "Proxy Servers." :Angel:

[Wynnston]

I wanted to post a link that might explain better then I can about argon dating, but when I did the search here at work, it was blocked for "personals". :eek:

Basically it has to do with deposition of radioactive argon. Once the argon is deposited, it begins to degrade. That rate of degredation is constant so you can date the rocks based upon how much radioactive argon is left. I will try to post a better link to an explanation later when I am no longer oddly censored.

Not quite. The date is derived from the ratio of a radioactive potassium isotope (K40) to argon (Ar40) which is produced by the radioactive decay of the potassium. K-Ar isn't the only radioactive dating system, there is Argon40 - Argon39, Uranium-Lead, Carbon-Carbon etc as well. Radioactive dating isn't perfect - it gives you a date with a plus or minus figure. That figure also depends on assumptions concerning the origins of the elements being considered i.e. is the argon all from radioactive decay? Has some argon escaped?

Google will help but watch out what you get. For a classic example of a creationist smoke screen on the issue - check this site out
http://www.eadshome.com/RadiometricDating.htm

However, the link below is a reasonable place to start
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Potassium_argon_dating


The best source of information on these dating methods and their pros and cons is the geological literature - I can supply some heavy papers if you're really interested.

[Wynnston]

For an excellent discussion on many significant scientific discoveries and theories and their historical context then read this book

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

Not only does he discuss the scientific issues in a clear way, he also discusses the human element of the various scientists involved including their ambition, greed and vanity where it occurs.

[wrydolphin]

Thanks for the correction Wynnston. I'll be doing some research on it today. Apparently by proxy servers. :D

Edit: I was thinking of Carbon-14, wasn't I?

[Johnno]

If I was a rational American I would be very worried that my country's president wants ID taught alongside evolutionary theory. I read that George Bush wants ID to be taught in schools in order to encourage 'diversity in biology'. The article suggested that they should therefore also teach that two plus two equals five, in order to encourage 'diversity in maths'. Which I thought was hilarious.

[Wynnston]

I read that George Bush wants ID to be taught in schools in order to encourage 'diversity in biology'. The article suggested that they should therefore also teach that two plus two equals five, in order to encourage 'diversity in maths'. Which I thought was hilarious.

Excellent :D

Unfortunately I think the absurdity of the ID position as pointed out by comments like that are totally wasted on the ID proponents.

[Wynnston]

Thanks for the correction Wynnston. I'll be doing some research on it today. Apparently by proxy servers. :D

Edit: I was thinking of Carbon-14, wasn't I?

I think you were thinking of Argon 40 to Argon 39 but I can't be sure, my mind scanner isn't working very well :Angel:

[wrydolphin]

You should get it fixed. :p

[Topher]

Here's a good article:

One side can be wrong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html)

[wrydolphin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176354,00.html

University of Kansas is also teaching Intelligent Design as well.... and I think its really gonna tick off The Discovery Institute. :D

[AuHg]

a divine agent that invents the complexity.

divine agent = god = alien

if you read further on in genesis or the book after that it mentions there were more than one divine creature.

So, there was a whole community of divine agents who created us. As I always wondered they must have come from a parallel universe.

OR if we imagine life as it happened in the manga cartoon Akira, where the main character tatsuo end up being the universe after he blew up. This could explain the energy force = divine agent that creates the complexity.

[wrydolphin]

I thought we cleared that up already:
Its the Flying Spagetti Monster. :D Arrrrrrr!

[Wynnston]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176354,00.html

University of Kansas is also teaching Intelligent Design as well.... and I think its really gonna tick off The Discovery Institute. :D

:)

[Wynnston]

I thought we cleared that up already:
Its the Flying Spagetti Monster. :D Arrrrrrr!

Only in this universe, in parallel universes it's a variety of other wheat derived monstrosities such as the Swimming Lasagne Monster and the Sunbathing Rigatoni Monster. There is also conjecture that rice derived monsters could also rule other universes but so far the evidence for the Slightly Neurotic Glass Noodle Monster is tenuous.

[jonmonk]

if you read further on in genesis or the book after that it mentions there were more than one divine creature.In fact it might be the third word in the Bible. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim The Hebrew word 'Elohim' is thought by some to be plural and regarded as a number of gods acting in unison.

[Topher]

Only in this universe, in parallel universes it's a variety of other wheat derived monstrosities such as the Swimming Lasagne Monster and the Sunbathing Rigatoni Monster. There is also conjecture that rice derived monsters could also rule other universes but so far the evidence for the Slightly Neurotic Glass Noodle Monster is tenuous.
Please don't ridicule His Noddleness! :D

[wrydolphin]

Watch it Wynn, or ye'll be walkin' the plank! Arrr! :D

[Wynnston]

His Noodleness told me himself that there are parallel universes ruled by his brethren. Do you doubt the word of the Noodle?

Unbelievers, heretics!

[AuHg]

Any astrophysicist among us, maybe you could explain stephen hawkins take on big bang.

[blessed_samurai]

a divine agent that invents the complexity.

divine agent = god = alien

if you read further on in genesis or the book after that it mentions there were more than one divine creature.

So, there was a whole community of divine agents who created us. As I always wondered they must have come from a parallel universe.

OR if we imagine life as it happened in the manga cartoon Akira, where the main character tatsuo end up being the universe after he blew up. This could explain the energy force = divine agent that creates the complexity.

The Bible never said that Adam and Eve were the only man and woman on Earth, just says they were in the Garden of Eden. Cain got kicked out of The Garden and God had to put a hedge of protection on him from others, then the world must have already been full of inhabitants.

If alien is to mean alien to our understanding, then, sure...God is an alien. If the word Elohim is plural then we're back to the example of The Trinity. God, the Father, didn't act alone. "Let US make man in OUR image."

And, please, whoever said the fruit they ate was an apple, don't say that...it only spreads the misconception that Milton wrote in Paradise Lost.

Aegis, back to my last response on page 2 or 3...yes, it was a reference to the spine being the form that it is and it being suited to upright walking. I'll have to go speak with Dr. Hooyman and Dr. Reedus because the way they explained it was a bit back and I've slept since then. In a nutshell, the response was man could not have evolved from a life form that did not walk upright to begin with.

I love missing pages and pages of this thread.

[Aegis]

Aegis, back to my last response on page 2 or 3...yes, it was a reference to the spine being the form that it is and it being suited to upright walking. I'll have to go speak with Dr. Hooyman and Dr. Reedus because the way they explained it was a bit back and I've slept since then. In a nutshell, the response was man could not have evolved from a life form that did not walk upright to begin with.

I actually heard the exact opposite: that man's spine was actually really badly designed for prolongued upright walking, which is why so many of us get back pains at some point in our lives.

However, the structural similarities between us and chimps are far from the most compelling evidence that we have a common ancestor. The DNA evidence is to my mind much more convincing than anything else, especially the evidence that shows our chromosone 2 to be a merged version of chimp chromosones 2a and 2b, even down to our completely obsolete termination points in the middle of our 2nd chromosone.

Add the retroviral evidence to this, and you have an extremely compelling argument for common ancestry between us and chimps, and other retroviruses show similar links between other species, both extinct and extanct.

[Omicron]

Any astrophysicist among us, maybe you could explain stephen hawkins take on big bang.
I'm no astrophysicist, but I have read Hawking's A Brief History of Time (which is an excellent book, by the way). He talks about how the universe was an infinitely dense body existing at an infinitely small point in space before the big bang (I think), and how without a quantum theory of gravity we have no way of explaining what happened in the moments very near to the big bang itself. At least, that's my general understanding of current knowledge about the big bang; it's been a while since I've read anything on the subject.

In a nutshell, the response was man could not have evolved from a life form that did not walk upright to begin with.
It's my understanding that we did evolve from life that did walked upright, at least part of the time. Did we not evolve from homo habilus and homo erectus, and did these species not walk at least partially upright? We're just the latest link in the evolutionary chain moving toward upright movement. As was said earlier, evolution does not produce perfect results; it instead produces the minimally acceptable traits required for survival and the transmission of genes. Things would look a little suspicious if we were perfectly "designed" organisms.

Has anyone read Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner? My biology professor recommended it as one of the best recent books describing evolution, both for the expert and layperson. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1995, and it seems to be very widely accepted as the premier work on the subject. I've only read the first few chapters, but thus far it seems to be an excellent read.

[blessed_samurai]

However, the structural similarities between us and chimps are far from the most compelling evidence that we have a common ancestor. The DNA evidence is to my mind much more convincing than anything else, especially the evidence that shows our chromosone 2 to be a merged version of chimp chromosones 2a and 2b, even down to our completely obsolete termination points in the middle of our 2nd chromosone.



This is true but I've heard the argument that we're 99% genetically the same as a piece of rice.

[Devoken]

I actually heard the exact opposite: that man's spine was actually really badly designed for prolongued upright walking, which is why so many of us get back pains at some point in our lives.

However, the structural similarities between us and chimps are far from the most compelling evidence that we have a common ancestor. The DNA evidence is to my mind much more convincing than anything else, especially the evidence that shows our chromosone 2 to be a merged version of chimp chromosones 2a and 2b, even down to our completely obsolete termination points in the middle of our 2nd chromosone.

Add the retroviral evidence to this, and you have an extremely compelling argument for common ancestry between us and chimps, and other retroviruses show similar links between other species, both extinct and extanct.

Not to mention the social similarities between us and chimps. Many attributes that we tend to regard as uniquely human are reflected in chimp communities.

[Vexed]

You may like to have a look at this site, if you haven't already.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
I have only briefly read some of it, first page, so take what you will from it.

As for my own personal opinion. I believe that the entire universe will get to a certain point and then turn back on itself, ending in an implosion, whereby everything will cease to be.

Just look at all the great movies on or around the subject. Lol Lol Lol......

Mark

[Aegis]

This is true but I've heard the argument that we're 99% genetically the same as a piece of rice.
Yes, but THAT has no basis in scientific fact ;)

Some creationists like to compare DNA similarity based on somewhat different criteria to scientists. Nutcase* Kent Hovind, for example, likes to point out the fallacy of DNA similarity by arranging species according to chromosone number. Obviously this is silly, but he claims that the fact that chimps have 2 more chromosones in total than us is evidence that we couldn't have evolved from them, while if you actually look at the DNA itself it is pretty clear that at one time in out species' ancestry we had an extra pair of chromosones which have since fused into one.

The problem I have with evolution is that too many people with little to no knowledge of the subject are up in arms about it. Someone like me should not be defending evolution, as I only know the smallest amount of the intricacy of the complete theory, but the sad fact is that I know more about it than most of the people who put it down or insist that it isn't science. Since I have some degree of scientific education (vaguely, I'm an engineer after all!) I feel obliged to defend science, even when I know relatively little.


* I've altered his title from "Doctor" to "Nutcase" because the man has claimed repeatedly that titles don't matter when people refer to doctors in evolutionary biology, for example, but insists on being introduced as "Dr Hovind" despite only having an unaccredited degree in christian education worth less than the paper it's printed on!

[blessed_samurai]

I'm in the same boat--my knowledge of evolution is pretty shallow. Something interesting that came up...Christy, a fried of mine that teaches Chem said we're actually closer genetically and physiolgically to goats than apes.

[Aegis]

Now there's something he'd have to back up, as biology and genetics seem to disagree with him. You should ask him for his source.

[Wynnston]

Respected, peer reviewed scientific journals are the only way of getting theories properly presented and reviewed by the scientific community. It can be a long and somewhat brutal process to get scientific papers published but the end result is all the better for having been forged on the anvil of critical analysis.

Science does not address questions of religion because the former addresses the physical world and the processes therein and the latter addresses the world of faith which is inherently untestable. Many scientists don't believe in a God because they can't see a role for one however many do as their beliefs don't conflict with good scientific practice as long as their lines of scientific enquiry are uncluttered by religious dogma and it's preconceptions.

You don't get that at the Discovery Institute.

Here's what the tagline on one of the pages on the DI website says:

"Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs."

However, here's what passes as some of the news on the DI website today:

Creation is a Revelation of God’s Presence By: Pope Benedict XVI National Catholic Register

ID Opens Astronomer’s Mind to Universe’s Surprises By: Julia C. Keller Science & Theology News

And from the events section:
December 13, 2005
A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion
Featuring Pamela R. Winnick, editor, Columbia Law Review

Given that they're non-partisan site I was looking for the pro-evolution theory articles and events but couldn't find them. Surely they're liable for prosecution under the US equivalent of the Trade Descriptions Act?

[Wynnston]

Oh and some superficial (but quite compelling) morphological evidence of man's relationship to chimps ...........

[Aegis]

A link to a page which shows the human/chimp DNA similarities I referred to above, including the telomeres in out 2nd chromosone where it used to be 2 instead of one.

http://www.carolguze.com/text/442-4-chromosome_analysis.shtml

Scroll down to the 2nd picture to see the picture even if you don't read the article to that point.

[Devoken]

Now there's something he'd have to back up, as biology and genetics seem to disagree with him. You should ask him for his source.

Not to mention visual evidence and common sense.

[wrydolphin]

Aegis, back to my last response on page 2 or 3...yes, it was a reference to the spine being the form that it is and it being suited to upright walking. I'll have to go speak with Dr. Hooyman and Dr. Reedus because the way they explained it was a bit back and I've slept since then. In a nutshell, the response was man could not have evolved from a life form that did not walk upright to begin with.



Ya'll have been busy while I have been gone.

Just a note about the evolution of the upright spine. We did evolve from a species that had an up right or bipedal spine type. But all of those species are apes. Apes are brachiators. They hang under branches and swing from one hand to another. (The monkey bars you used to play from as a child are a misnomer. Allmost all monkeys walk on top of the branches.) The body design is very similar to bipedalism.

And before anyone brings it out, and I know it will be hit eventually, because for some reason the eye is always the organ that creationists love to trot out to "disprove" evolution, I highly suggest reading In the Blink of an Eye. It is an excellent and very readable natural history of the eye.

[Du-Du-Dude]

Cell Creation is what I think. =/ To really say it all - history is like an endless vacuum. Never ending, as everything happening right now co-exist with the past, present, and future; what we did in the past effects our present and future. Get my drift? So, I'm thinking that bunches of cells in the past combine together to form things. How did cells get here? Blah, blah, never-ends. I know this post is confusing, but it's late now so I can't do it any better with this brain turn on.

[Aegis]

Cell Creation is what I think. =/ To really say it all - history is like an endless vacuum. Never ending, as everything happening right now co-exist with the past, present, and future; what we did in the past effects our present and future. Get my drift? So, I'm thinking that bunches of cells in the past combine together to form things. How did cells get here? Blah, blah, never-ends. I know this post is confusing, but it's late now so I can't do it any better with this brain turn on.
Well, we can't say for certain how the first cells came in to being because we weren't there, but we can make some speculations based on what we know from chemistry and biology experiments. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50s demonstrated that amino acids can form naturally from the basic ingredients thought to be present in the pre-life atmosphere of this planet. This certainly lends some credibility to abiogenesis, whether aided by the god of your choice or otherwise.

[wrydolphin]

I already made a post on the evolution of the cell and the protien, RNA and DNA theories. I don't feel like retyping it and I can't remember where I posted it in the first place to find it. SO look these up instead. :D

Website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section.90
Books:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816049467/103-3999546-6233455?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0792335627/103-3999546-6233455?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

[Omicron]

What do you all think of mitochondria in the evolution of the cell? I remember learning that they have their own DNA independent of that of the actual cell, and that biologists now believe they were originally bacteria that infiltrated the cell, but became so useful for energy production that they became incorportated as organelles. I think that's fascinating.

[wrydolphin]

Co-evolution. One of the many things that Darwin did not take into account developing his theory. And, yes, very fascinating.

[Du-Du-Dude]

Cell Creation - Cells are little interesting creatures, might I say! ;) Somewhat in the past, they were created by something and thus created into another things like the Dinosaurs! How did they get here, how was they created, how do we know the actual way Cells are made? Those, are few out of infinite questions that we may forever not be able to give an answer to. ( What is everything make up? Atoms, blah blah! How is Atom there, though? O.o )

Evolution - One member going to a different mode. E.G. apes to humans; but how do we know evolution happen? Couldn't humans be created by cells? Please don't tell me the theory of *I forgot* on species growing new skills to "adapt" to its environment! >.> Heard of it plenty before, and it sickens me. How? Well, the answer lies in your thinking! ( This means that a specific species evolved into a new species, if not more different kinds! Also, the original species may or may not be there. )

Intelligent Design - How the mother lord can this happen without Cells being there first? If you really think about it, an egg must have DNA/Blueprints to actually become an egg! Where does DNA come from though? Cells or another mysterious organisms that we haven't find yet? Hm...? ( How are we created like this as we are? Hm, how? )

Also, something that can back everyone's opinion off is a little quote/saying I heard plenty of times: "Anything can happen" :p

[Aegis]

Du-Du-Dude, your writing style leaves quite a lot to be desired. I'm having genuine difficulty understanding a lot of what you're trying to say, so I'll attempt to answer as best I can, but in future could you please make an effort to explain your points better? Thanks

Cell Creation - Cells are little interesting creatures, might I say! ;)

Cells aren't actually creatures, unless we're talking about single-celled organisms, which certainly are interesting to scientists.

Somewhat in the past, they were created by something and thus created into another things like the Dinosaurs!

This is opinion, not fact and has no scientific evidence backing it. We have no records of a spontaneous creation (nothing against the idea either, but that's not how science works, you need to have evidence backing something for it to be considered for falsification testing). We can actually hypothesise about how dinosaurs evolved in to one another from the fossil records, which, while not complete, gives a good indication of which creatures were around at what times. Since life is currently evolving and we can see evidence for speciation in recent times, we have no reason to believe that life behaved any differently whent eh dinosaurs were alive, so evolution is extremely likely as a method of speciation for dinosaurs.

How did they get here, how was they created, how do we know the actual way Cells are made? Those, are few out of infinite questions that we may forever not be able to give an answer to. ( What is everything make up? Atoms, blah blah! How is Atom there, though? O.o )

We may never know exactly how the first cell was formed, but that's no reason to appeal to a higher authority. After all, we're still not entirely sure how gravity works, but we don't appeal to Intelligent Falling simply because we have no other ideas. Again, this is not how science works.


Evolution - One member going to a different mode. E.G. apes to humans; but how do we know evolution happen?

Actually evolution is "a change in allele frequencies between generations", which can then lead to one species forming a genetically isolated group from the rest of its species, eventually becoming incompatible. This would then be defined as a new species. And we know that evolution happens because we can witness it happening in labs to bacteria in the extremely short term, and to fruit flies and fish in the more long-term experiments. With the knowledge that evolution happens, we can find evidence to support the common ancestry between certain species, and from there entire groups of animals, like mammals.

A few posts back I posted an article which showed the banding of chromosones in chimpanzees and humans, and it indicated that human chromosone 2 is almost identical to a fused version of chimpanzee chromosones 2a and 2b, supporting the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor with 24 chromosone pairs rather than 23. This is far from the only evidence available for evolution, but it is extremely compelling.

Couldn't humans be created by cells? Please don't tell me the theory of *I forgot* on species growing new skills to "adapt" to its environment! >.> Heard of it plenty before, and it sickens me.

I don't recall there being any theory which states that species grow new skills to adapt. Evolutionary theory states that random mutations are selected for by reproductive success rates, therefore a more successful mutation (i.e. one which gives a greater chance of surviving to produce offspring) has a greater chance of being passed to subsequent generations. Enough mutations, and you have a new species.

What exactly makes you sick about that?

How? Well, the answer lies in your thinking! ( This means that a specific species evolved into a new species, if not more different kinds! Also, the original species may or may not be there. )

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here!

Intelligent Design - How the mother lord can this happen without Cells being there first? If you really think about it, an egg must have DNA/Blueprints to actually become an egg! Where does DNA come from though? Cells or another mysterious organisms that we haven't find yet? Hm...? ( How are we created like this as we are? Hm, how? )

Well, I'm not about to defend ID on general principle! However, I'd so far say that you have a lot to learn about both evolution and ID, as there seem to be a fair few misconceptions in just this short post.

Also, something that can back everyone's opinion off is a little quote/saying I heard plenty of times: "Anything can happen" :p

I'd personally prefer "Anything with a finite probability can happen" myself, simply because that then ignores completely impossible events.

[wrydolphin]

Du-Du-Dude:
Obviously, you never actually listened while someone was explaining evolutionary theory, or you listened to someone who didn't understand it. When you pick bad sources, you get bad information. And its not like you seem to have bothered reading back over the thread either. Biological complexity completely falls within the realm of the laws of chemistry, and to a certain degree, physics. All cells and their components are basically long strings of carbon molecoles that interact in chemically predetermined ways. Also, scientists have discovered that many of those componants were self replicating.

So, basically, the first "cell" would have been a lipid bubble (quite easily made in labs) surrounding some self replicating protien, RNA or DNA. That's where the arguements start, which molecule class was the starting point for the cell. When you look at archeabacteria, basically what you have is a very simple cell. Its a tiny membrane filled sac, with a coil of DNA and not much else. The cellular processes are undergone in the cytoplasm for the most part and they don't really have the complex organelles that eukaryotic cells (such as our cells) do. In fact, eukaryotic cells evolved from archeabacteria. The most common theory being that the organelles were other bacteria that were "swallowed" by the cell but not digested. They ended up in a symbiosis with the larger cells and there you go.

The rejection of evolution means the rejection of at least three major scientific disaplines, which are only widely related. There is no other answer to biological complexity. And your misunderstanding of evolution, doesn't affect that. To steal words from Dawkins "Read a book, they are quite nice and you will love them." In fact, Dawkins wrote a quit nice one that is very readable called The Blind Watchmaker. Pick it up.

[Topher]

We may never know exactly how the first cell was formed, but that's no reason to appeal to a higher authority. After all, we're still not entirely sure how gravity works, but we don't appeal to Intelligent Falling simply because we have no other ideas. Again, this is not how science works.

That’s what gets me. When argument A (evolution) reaches a stumbling-block argument B (creationism) wins by default. This means one side has to produce evidence every step of the way, while the other just sits and waits. That is in now way “teaching both sides”.

And that fact the creationists reject evolution on the grounds it’s just to complex, yet they replace it with an even more absurd/complex idea. I mean, if a designer was need to created life, how was the designer created…

Please don't tell me the theory of *I forgot* on species growing new skills to "adapt" to its environment! >.> Heard of it plenty before, and it sickens me.

So you saying that a species dose not adapt to its environment :rolleyes: I’ve heard quite the opposite.

[Du-Du-Dude]

Aegis - You really one day would be a great Science Researcher! My, through all of your posts I've seen nothing but mainly on facts about Science. We can debate about this subject more once I know more of Science. =P *ahem, in 8th grade we're not taught much on cells and nowhere near evolution nor intelligent design*

Homer - Whoops, not what I meant. o.o :p

Well, maybe in the near future I could come visit you guys ( Aegis and Homer ) and you guys could teach me these stuff. XD

[Aegis]

Aegis - You really one day would be a great Science Researcher! My, through all of your posts I've seen nothing but mainly on facts about Science. We can debate about this subject more once I know more of Science. =P *ahem, in 8th grade we're not taught much on cells and nowhere near evolution nor intelligent design*

Homer - Whoops, not what I meant. o.o :p

Well, maybe in the near future I could come visit you guys ( Aegis and Homer ) and you guys could teach me these stuff. XD
Thanks. Science research isn't actually where I want to go, but I did a masters degree in engineering which included some research. As for this specific subject, I've been following the evolution/ID debate for some time now and have attempted to understand as many of the arguments from either side as I can.

[AuHg]

What do you all think of mitochondria in the evolution of the cell? I remember learning that they have their own DNA independent of that of the actual cell, and that biologists now believe they were originally bacteria that infiltrated the cell, but became so useful for energy production that they became incorportated as organelles. I think that's fascinating.

yeah that theory which proposes mitochondria acts like a virus then evolution kick start is machinery making a cell more useful.

an interesting comment (since this is ma forum), some ppl cannot grasp the idea of internal energy. So, we can say mitochondria are the organelle in the production of some of the 32 ATP circulated in the body in 24hrs. or was it 23 ATP? well, i sucked in biochemistry.

[wrydolphin]

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/11/28/the_mosquito_and_the_bottle.php

This is a pretty good article expressing natural selection.

[LJoll]

This is a really interesting thread. There are a few things I don't get about Christianity. If there is a divine plan that were all following, then surely it's God's fault when we sin. How can he then punish us?

Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence yet on this thread to suggest that evolution is wrong and even if it is why would that mean that ID is right. A lot of religous people seem to use the theory that, if you don't know the reason for something, it must be God.

To the best of my understanding, there is no scientific "evidence" that God exists. At the moment it seems that the best explanation for there being a God would be an abstract philosophical explanation than a scientific one.

[Devoken]

Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence yet on this thread to suggest that evolution is wrong and even if it is why would that mean that ID is right..

There are gaps in our knowledge of evolution, but insufficient evidence to falsify it.

At the moment it seems that the best explanation for there being a God would be an abstract philosophical explanation than a scientific one.

Yes, but unfortunately this makes the whole 'Religion vs Science' argument an invalid one (there has to be evidence for something for it to be tested by the scientific method).

[Yohan]

Well, I haven't read this thread, but I would like to state that I think that intelligent design and evolution are basically the same thing. I beleive in God, and I beleive in evolution. I beleive that god is an "intelligent" (for lack of a better term to describe it) being, and that he/she/it/whatever designed the laws of evolution in order to allow "stuff" to happen (such as the creation of intelligent life on the planet earth).

In my eyes, evolution is the PERFECT example of intelligent design, so I don't see what people have against it.

Further more, I don't really have any problem with teaching intelligent design in schools, except for the fact that it VIOLATES THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION to stick God and church into the public education system.

Further more, if we (the american people) give these fundamentalists an inch, they will take a mile. If they get "intelligent design" in school curriculums, they will be pushing for the next thing before too long.

[bod]

Well, I haven't read this thread, but I would like to state that I think that intelligent design and evolution are basically the same thing. I beleive in God, and I beleive in evolution. I beleive that god is an "intelligent" (for lack of a better term to describe it) being, and that he/she/it/whatever designed the laws of evolution in order to allow "stuff" to happen (such as the creation of intelligent life on the planet earth).

In my eyes, evolution is the PERFECT example of intelligent design, so I don't see what people have against it.


There is a massive difference between natural selection on one side and God on the other, this thread is brilliant I sagest that you go back and read it through from the begging or if you wish to hear the argument for and against I.D. then go here and listen to this http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2...0810_a_main.asp

[aikiMac]

Further more, I don't really have any problem with teaching intelligent design in schools, except for the fact that it VIOLATES THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION to stick God and church into the public education system.
How so?
Could you identify for me the part of the Constitution that would be violated? I'd like to read it. That would be interesting.


To steal words from Dawkins "Read a book, they are quite nice and you will love them." In fact, Dawkins wrote a quit nice one that is very readable called The Blind Watchmaker. Pick it up.
Reviewed here (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=419110&) at post #95.

[Gary]

I can't help but think of Richard Dawkins work on religion as a 'mind virus' (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html) when i read this, the more pro ID arguements I see the better it gets :D

[wrydolphin]

Sigh, I knew it, there's the eye arguement. Once again, read a book, they are quite lovely.

"In chap 7 (pages 186-87) he compares the “arms race” of predators and prey in nature, against the arms race of nations. The arms race of nations is set by intelligent design: people are consciously planning it and doing it. If we’re going to compare what we all know is an intelligent design to events witnessed in nature, why must we discredit the suggestion that those events in nature are the result of intelligent design? I see no logic behind his bias. "

Kind of liek the chapter about the bat radar. There is no intelligence behind it. Much like bats don't actually compute distance based upon wave length, species don't plan arms races. Just all the easy prey gets picked off first, allowing more fit prey to breed and father the other generations. And the less fit preditors die off first, allowing the more fit ones to pass their genes off to their iffspring.

"At no point in the book does he offer an explanation for the origin of predator and prey. He takes their existence for granted, and proffers a natural-selection explanation for successive improvements in running speed, teeth, etc. Well, come now, that’s a leap of faith. "

If there is a niche it gets filled. Preditor and prey is such a basic niche I can't belive that's the one you picked. Even unicellular organisms "hunt".

"At no point in the book does he offer an explanation for the development of a full body from a single cell or even a cluster of cells. He mentions more than once that as a fetus develops into a fully developed animal (human or otherwise) that genes sequentially turn on and off. But why is this so? His only answer is, paraphrased, “natural selection made it so.” That’s a blatant leap of faith. Come on, that’s pure and unadulterated religious faith! "
Want to know how multicellular life evolved? Look at philogeny. You go from unicellular to colonies to simple multicellular to more complex and more complex. Once again, no faith involved.

I will leave the theologin stuff to you, especially as I have problems wading through it.

And sure its just a theory, in the same way that the Cell Theory and the Theory of gravity are just theories. Face it man, the entire world full of credable scientists and you think we are all just too stupid to not understand biology? All it took was someone like you and it discounts thousands of hours of experimentation and study? Yeah..... sure. :D

PS: Sorry I missed it earlier or I would have addressed your points then instead of now.

[aikiMac]

PS: Sorry I missed it earlier or I would have addressed your points then instead of now.
Hey, it's an old thread. No worries.

My point in that particular post was that the evolution-proponents do that which they make fun of the dissenters for doing. I'm sorry that you still don't see that. :cry:

[wrydolphin]

I don't think I have ever made fun, personally. Though I do see it... on BOTH sides of the fence. (Ok or at least not that much fun)

I don't see it as faith, I see it as rational conclusion based upon solid evidence. I see no evidence to support ID or creationism.

[Topher]

Further more, I don't really have any problem with teaching intelligent design in schools, except for the fact that it VIOLATES THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION to stick God and church into the public education system.

Neither do it, just not in the science class.

[Kwajman]

Growing up I was a very strong fundamentalist christian. Then I went to college and learned lots of things and began asking questions of my minister and his bosses. They couldn't, or wouldn't answer them, mostly saying, well you just have to have faith. Thats not much of an answer. When part of my family died, I asked more and more questions and no one could answer them and I've just lost more and more of my faith. From a scientific standpoint, I look at the universe and think, there is no way this could have been created by an individual. But then sometimes I think theres no way random atoms could have created the universe either. At times, I'd love to believe there is a god because I have soooooo many questions to ask if by some quirk of nature I could go to heaven and ask them.

[Yohan]

[QUOTE]There is a massive difference between natural selection on one side and God on the other, this thread is brilliant I sagest that you go back and read it through from the begging or if you wish to hear the argument for and against I.D. then go here and listen to this http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2...0810_a_main.asp

I will go back and read it - haven't had the time yet.

How so?
Could you identify for me the part of the Constitution that would be violated? I'd like to read it. That would be interesting.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Does this apply directly to the recent case in pennsylvania? No, because it didn't involve congress MAKING a law.

Does it apply to the generally? I say yes.

[aikiMac]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I don't see how this applies. Explain, please.

[Aegis]

Whether or not ID is a religion and whether or not it is against the constitution is fairly irrelevant in the long run. In science classes, students should be taught science. ID (or any other religion for that matter) does not match the criteria to be science, therefore it should not be taught in science classes.

The fact of the matter is that scientific theories are developed over a very long period of experimentation, prediction and testing to eventually come up with a model to explain a natural phenomenon. The proponents of ID are trying to circumvent this process by going straight to kids. Why? Simply because ID has nothing with which to face the scientific explanations in the usual manner, so the followers of this pseudo-science/religion are trying more devious ways to push it through.

When the Wedge Strategy was leaked from the Discover Institute, the reason for this method became apparent. Getting ID into schools was only meant to be the first step. The next was to completely irradicate Evolutionary Theory (through a combination of the usual arguments from incredulity and brainwashing of some description), then to indoctrinate the kids to fundamentalist christianity with seemingly little scientific opposition.

Of course, managing this would require the falsification of biology, geology, paeleontology, archaology, cosmology and a whole host of other disciplines which demonstrate a near-certainty that the world is not young, that a flood didn't happen, etc.

Faith despite science is laudable to a point, but attempting to destroy science simply because of faith? Tragic.

[JKN-Taylor]

From a scientific standpoint, I look at the universe and think, there is no way this could have been created by an individual. But then sometimes I think theres no way random atoms could have created the universe either. At times, I'd love to believe there is a god because I have soooooo many questions to ask if by some quirk of nature I could go to heaven and ask them.

I was also brought up in a very strict church "Trinity Baptist". I remember asking questions no one could answer. I remember crying at least once a week when I was about seven, thinking I was going to go to hell for something or another. (Nothing like using “Hell Fire and Brimstone” to give a child faith)

Eventually my mom got sick of the way our Church was treating everyone (she had been there since birth) and stopped making me go. We tried several religions after that, Catholicism, Unitarianism, Buddhism,… My mom ended up sticking with Hinduism and I consider myself a very devout and spiritual Agnostic, dabbling in Buddhism.

I pray to “God” (the same way/God a Christian would, only I don’t reserve prayer for when I want something…) I believe there has to be some sort of Divine entity, be it a deity or deities, a collective positive energy, …or even a necessary myth. I follow the ten Commandments, not because I’m afraid of Hell, but because I feel it’s the right thing to do! (“what!?!!!?! You do the right thing even without the fear of God!!?”)

I believe in Evolution and I know that there are things in this universe that we are not equipped to understand/measure/see. I believe in Spirituality. And I think it’s funny/sad that most Christians don’t think their Omnipotent God could have created the universe with a “Big bang” or any other way he/she wanted to, simply because it would go against the teachings of a sacred, ->man-written<-, story book.

I’m scared to death of becoming confirmation biased (to me, being blindly trapped within your own beliefs is Hell), and always searching for possible truths.

… what a fascinating topic ^_^

[wrydolphin]

I think I figured it out when I was still going to primary school as a kid in a religous school of some sort or another.
The teacher was going on and I remember thinking, wait: God is omnipotent. People who don't believe in Jesus go to Hell. Many people are born in places where they don't know about Jesus. They go to Hell when they die. God is love.

Yeah...... sure....... ooookay.....

But, back to science. :D

[JKN-Taylor]

P.S.

Shiner Bock = brown frothy gold

[AuHg]

I'd love to believe there is a god because I have soooooo many questions to ask if by some quirk of nature I could go to heaven and ask them.

Yes, it would be nice to do so if we were in one of the episode in South Park where it was the year 1999 and Jesus promised the ppl God will come down from the heavens.
Then God appreared to be like a fat cute dragon waving off flies with his tail. The rule was God allowed one question the Stanley asked why his friends were bleeding from their ass and not him.

[Omicron]

Whether or not ID is a religion and whether or not it is against the constitution is fairly irrelevant in the long run. In science classes, students should be taught science. ID (or any other religion for that matter) does not match the criteria to be science, therefore it should not be taught in science classes.
The most relevant point thus far! If enough people want ID taught in their children's school, fine. If enough teachers are willing to teach it, fine. But, at the very least people should realize that it is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. We don't learn how to bake muffins in gym class or how to observe chemical reactions in church, so ID should be left out of science classes and taught in philosophy classes.

It really bothers me that many people perceive the scientific community to be one giant exclusive body that opposes religion or ID. By its very nature, the scientific community is self-critical, and it's for that reason that ID and other faith-based claims are rejected. Scientists love to learn about new things and to discover problems or holes in existing theories; it's by solving those problems that we advance. If the religious community could present an evidence-based argument that sufficiently addresses the criteria of the scientific community (criteria, I might add, that have been responsible for the progress of Western society since the renaissance), the scientific community would be more than willing to embrace it. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. It's not that science conspires to exclude religion, but that religion fails to include science in its outlook.

[aikiMac]

I think I figured it out when I was still going to primary school as a kid in a religous school of some sort or another.
The teacher was going on and I remember thinking, wait: God is omnipotent. People who don't believe in Jesus go to Hell. Many people are born in places where they don't know about Jesus. They go to Hell when they die. God is love.

Yeah...... sure....... ooookay.....
I question whether this is an accurate statement of orthodox Christianity, but that aside, certainly the scientist part of you knows and believes that "I don't like it" does not equal "it's false." Right?

[aikiMac]

When the Wedge Strategy was leaked from the Discover Institute, the reason for this method became apparent. Getting ID into schools was only meant to be the first step. The next was to completely irradicate Evolutionary Theory (through a combination of the usual arguments from incredulity and brainwashing of some description), then to indoctrinate the kids to fundamentalist christianity with seemingly little scientific opposition.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Forty years ago or whatever, when almost all school principals and school teachers and students went to a church on Saturday or Sunday and worshipped this God or that God, and talked about God with each other on weekends, a group of atheists arose and forbid people who talk about God with each other on weekends out of school, to talk about God with each other on weekdays in school. And so atheism was force-fed upon us against much outcry.

Now some people want to do the reverse, and you see fit to cry "foul" ?! How so? I missed the part where there is an external standard recognizable by all of us that makes the wishes of atheists better than the wishes of theists and deists. It seems to me that the atheist side just has a habit of crying everytime it doesn't get its own way.

[Omicron]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Forty years ago or whatever, when almost all school principals and school teachers and students went to a church on Saturday or Sunday and worshipped this God or that God, and talked about God with each other on weekends, a group of atheists arose and forbid people who talk about God with each other on weekends out of school, to talk about God with each other on weekdays in school. And so atheism was force-fed upon us against much outcry.

Now some people want to do the reverse, and you see fit to cry "foul" ?! How so? I missed the part where there is an external standard recognizable by all of us that makes the wishes of atheists better than the wishes of theists and deists. It seems to me that the atheist side just has a habit of crying everytime it doesn't get its own way.
It's not a bad thing, it's a terrible thing. Saying that a group of atheists "forbade" anything is misconstruing the facts. Firstly, many proponents of evolution and the removal of religion from schools are themselves theists. Secondly, nothing was forbidden, so much as dropped in light of new development. We don't teach children that the earth is flat or at centre of the universe anymore, because science has proven otherwise. Why should we teach them, in science class, something that is inherently unscientific?

There is reason to cry foul over this issue. Scientists don't actively seek to promote their own ideas or agendas over others. The scientific method calls for rigorous peer review and self-criticism. ID, as shown in the wedge document, has been pushed with the express purpose of bringing Christianity back into American science classes. That is not the way science works. Scientists examine facts, gather data, and then use them to express some type of testable prediction. If this prediction is then verified, it goes on to be taught in scientific curricula. Supporters of ID have done the exact opposite: they set out with a particular goal in mind (again, stated in the wedge document) and then gathered bogus facts and made wild claims in order to support their philosophy.

Everything else aside, it should at least be recognized that intelligent design is being viewed with disdain by the very community it is trying to infiltrate. Why should something shunned by the scientific community be taught in the science classroom? On the one hand ID claims to be a scientific approach, but on the other it completely disregards the practices of the community from which it hopes to gain acceptance. This alone should demonstrate that there is an ulterior motive afoot than just a "reasonable alternative" to evolutionary theory.

And, slightly off topic, I find aikiMac's above post to be a textbook example of a religious modus operandi in that it demonizes one group (in this case, atheists) and paints them as an enemy. Speaking from experience, most atheists are not anti-religion. Rather, they are simply individuals who feel that religion does not satisfactorily explain the world around them. Again from my personal experience, they are often more tolerant and accepting than people who subscribe to religion. Blaming the failings of intelligent design on a bunch of conspiring, crybaby atheists is frankly not only misinformed but also insulting.

[Topher]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Forty years ago or whatever, when almost all school principals and school teachers and students went to a church on Saturday or Sunday and worshipped this God or that God, and talked about God with each other on weekends, a group of atheists arose and forbid people who talk about God with each other on weekends out of school, to talk about God with each other on weekdays in school. And so atheism was force-fed upon us against much outcry.

Now some people want to do the reverse, and you see fit to cry "foul" ?! How so? I missed the part where there is an external standard recognizable by all of us that makes the wishes of atheists better than the wishes of theists and deists. It seems to me that the atheist side just has a habit of crying everytime it doesn't get its own way.
Brainwashing children is a GOOD thing?

The ID camp realise that the church has failed got keep members and gain new members and therefore it want to sneakily go in through the back door and indoctrinate children who are incapable of making such life choices. Redressing creationism as Intelligent Design is there method of doing this as it allows them to bypass the church/state law and get into the educational system.

I don’t think no one rejects it being taught, just as long as its in the right classroom. No matter what way you play at it ID is NOT science, period. They seem to think by discrediting science (albeit rather poorly), creationism automatically wins without providing a shred of evidence. They say to "teach both sides" but to teach it alongside science in a science classroom it need the very thing it doesn’t have - evidence.

The fact is science is not a faith, creationism is and its best they stay like that.

And, I don’t ever recall atheists using the same tack-ticks used by the creationists to basically try to brainwash people. As Richard Dawkins said, science doesn’t need public relation companies to promote it.

Try reading this article which I posted earlier. Quite a good read ;) http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

[Strafio]

The teacher was going on and I remember thinking, wait: God is omnipotent. People who don't believe in Jesus go to Hell. Many people are born in places where they don't know about Jesus. They go to Hell when they die. God is love.

Yeah...... sure....... ooookay.....
I question whether this is an accurate statement of orthodox Christianity, but that aside, certainly the scientist part of you knows and believes that "I don't like it" does not equal "it's false." Right?
In this case it wasn't the "not liking it".
A loving God sending people to Hell for no believing in something they'd never even heard of. Makes no sense to me either... (it's been a while since we had our last judgement debate... ;))

[Aegis]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I believe that it would be a terrible thing! After all, modern countries are made up of a multitude of ethnicities and religions, and if you choose one religion to teach you make outcasts of the others. That would truly not be in the spirit of the constitution of the USA as outlined above.

Atheism is not taught as a religion in schools. If aything, schools and science should be either agnostic or weak atheist (i.e. not actively "believing" in any god or gods, but not stating that they do not exist either). This way all students would be entitled to their own beliefs without having those of another religion imposed on them.

Forty years ago or whatever, when almost all school principals and school teachers and students went to a church on Saturday or Sunday and worshipped this God or that God, and talked about God with each other on weekends, a group of atheists arose and forbid people who talk about God with each other on weekends out of school, to talk about God with each other on weekdays in school. And so atheism was force-fed upon us against much outcry.

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Theists are more than welcome to discuss god(s) whenever and wherever they please as long as it doesn't cause a disruption during class time, for example. Atheists are not trying to stop you practicing your faith, except some of the militant strong atheists, who are about as representative of the rest of us as mormons are of christianity.

Now some people want to do the reverse, and you see fit to cry "foul" ?! How so? I missed the part where there is an external standard recognizable by all of us that makes the wishes of atheists better than the wishes of theists and deists. It seems to me that the atheist side just has a habit of crying everytime it doesn't get its own way.

You've really missed the point here. Science is by definition agnostic, if you start accepting the supernatural explanations for anything hard (like "this cell is complicated, god did it" or "we can't explain gravity fully, so god did it") then scientific investigation into the natural world would grind to a halt because of pointless arguments between different groups of theistic scientists. With an agnostic scientific method, these arguments are completely ignored because they offer not explanatory power. The "God did it" hypothesis is unfalsifiable and returns no useful results, hence it is not included in science.

This is not oppression, nor is it unfair. It is science, and it has worked this way since the scientific method was first stated, gaining extremely good results in the process. Useful results or models obtained through a creationist or ID approach: zero. I think this speaks fairly well for itself really.

[wrydolphin]

aki-
I never said religions are wrong, merely illogical, full of contridictions and used to promote personal veiws that may or may not have anything to do with reality. In the abstract, they are wonderful things. Just human nature always gets in the way.

Evolution is fact, it is as scientifically sound and the cell theory or the atomic theory. It is the only explanation of biological diversity that belongs in the classroom. And when you get right down to it, its the only thing that makes logical sense.

[DCombatives]

First, let's clarify the so-called "seperation of church and state" clause of the Constitution. The framer's intent is clear in both the phrasing of the clause and the their personal writings about it: there is no such thing as seperation of church and state where the state is required to keep religion out of the public sphere so as not to offend anyone. In fact, the clause was intended to prevent that very thing by guaranteeing the free exercise of anyone's religion, even on public property. It is impossible for the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools to be unconstitutional.

On a personal level, there is no doubt in my mind there is a God who is responsible for the creation of the universe. How or why is irrelevant to me; all that matters is my faith in who is responsible for our existence. I say that so we can establish my position at the outset: I believe we are here as a result of God’s will and if the “Intelligent Design” camp won’t say it outright, I will. Why or how or to what extent God was involved in shaping life on Earth seems to be the primary focus of the debate, but while the devil may be in the details, I think that focus misses the point entirely.

At issue here is whether or not the idea of Intelligent Design can or should be taught in High School. Does it violate the separation of Church and State? Does it show a gov’t respect of religion and therefore violate someone’s “rights” by offending them? My answer is that neither of these questions is relevant from a purely academic or objective standpoint. The reality is neither the Intelligent Design camp or the Evolution camp can prove their theory is correct. Sure, the body of scientific evidence currently lies with the idea of evolution, but they still cannot adequately explain the starting point of life any more scientifically than a Creationist who believes life began as it is literally outlined in the Bible.

So if neither idea can be adequately proved or disproved, how can we consider eliminating one or the other from the body of thought about the topic? Would not the more scientifically objective method of teaching the subject include all major theories? Would not the best course of action for the advancement of scientific thought be to discuss the major theories in the hopes of sparking interest in young people who may go on to make scientific advancements in the field?

Clearly the right thing to do is teach our children the basic tenets of all the competing theories. While I believe God created the universe, I expect a High School science teacher to explain the Big Bang theory to my children as part of their education. I will be concerned if he does not. It has nothing to do with a Church and State issue! We as a society have a responsibility to expose our children and young adults to a wide variety of ideas to better their education. Limiting what they can think about places limits on their minds. How does limiting the realm of ideas improve our educational institutions, especially ideas that have yet to be disproved? The answer is it doesn’t, and therefore cannot be justified under any pretense of “scientific” objectivity.

But if the academic thing to do is expose students to competing ideas, then why do so many “academics” oppose teaching Intelligent Design? Therein may be the real question, and the underlying reason why this is such a big issue. I submit the political and social objectives of those opposed to Intelligent Design are the real reason this is a front page news story. The test is simple: ask yourself what is gained and what is lost by teaching competing theories, then ask yourself why people who have supposedly dedicated their lives to the advancement of human understanding of the natural world would want to place limits on the body of knowledge concerning that understanding? Your answer, if you’ve been objective at all, should shed some light on what’s wrong with America’s educational system.

If there is any brainwashing going on in the public school system, it is the propagation of the liberal left's ideologies at the exclusion of more traditional moral philosophies. And while I can grant that maybe ID belongs in a philosophy class as opposed to a science class, I think it's impossible to teach the science class perspective without mentioning it.

[jonmonk]

I don't think the issue is whether or not it's taught. I think the issue is whether or not it's taught as science. IMO ID belongs in a philosophy or religious ed class, evolution belongs in a science class. That doesn't mean you can't refer to ID in a science class any more than it means you can't refer to evolution in an RE class but I don't see ID as science any more than I see evolution as religious education.

[Johnno]

The test is simple: ask yourself what is gained and what is lost by teaching competing theoriesNothing. But don't forget that evolution IS a theory, and 'intelligent design' is NOT.

If there is any brainwashing going on in the public school system, it is the propagation of the liberal left's ideologies at the exclusion of more traditional moral philosophies.So it's all another left-wing conspiracy... yawn. Anything you don't agree with it's a left-wing conspiracy, right? Yee-hah!

And while I can grant that maybe ID belongs in a philosophy class as opposed to a science class, I think it's impossible to teach the science class perspective without mentioning it.I think it's possible not to mention it at all. The only reason you might mention it would be the same reason you might mention the 'flat earth' idea.

[Strafio]

I think the biggest bone scientists have is that ID was pushed into schools by politics.
Usually, science lessons are based on the most sound theories that the scientific community have. In this case, the scientific community was ignored and politicians decided what should be taught, and did so based on their religious agenda (if there's a crossing of that seperation, maybe it's there).

If ID was pushed into the scientific community and most of them accepted it as valid (which is kind of unlikely as ID is more philosophical than scientific) then it would naturally become part of the scientific curriculum. The situation as it stands has politicians pushing their theories into the classrooms in a way that looks "scientific" and credible.

[Aegis]

On a personal level, there is no doubt in my mind there is a God who is responsible for the creation of the universe. How or why is irrelevant to me; all that matters is my faith in who is responsible for our existence. I say that so we can establish my position at the outset: I believe we are here as a result of God’s will and if the “Intelligent Design” camp won’t say it outright, I will. Why or how or to what extent God was involved in shaping life on Earth seems to be the primary focus of the debate, but while the devil may be in the details, I think that focus misses the point entirely.

You can believe this, that's your right as an individual. However, without supporting evidence, this absolutely should not be taught as science. Science is about evidence, without evidence something is not a scientific theory. At best it is a hypothesis, but if the idea is not falsifiable (i.e. if it suggests a designer who leaves no trace of his/her/its existance and therefore leaves the same evidence if it is true as if it is false) then it is not even that. This is the major issue here: that ID is NOT science, therefore it should not be taught as science.

At issue here is whether or not the idea of Intelligent Design can or should be taught in High School. Does it violate the separation of Church and State? Does it show a gov’t respect of religion and therefore violate someone’s “rights” by offending them? My answer is that neither of these questions is relevant from a purely academic or objective standpoint. The reality is neither the Intelligent Design camp or the Evolution camp can prove their theory is correct. Sure, the body of scientific evidence currently lies with the idea of evolution, but they still cannot adequately explain the starting point of life any more scientifically than a Creationist who believes life began as it is literally outlined in the Bible.

Emphasis mine.

Science is not about proof, it is about evidence. Given that the evidence at the moment wholely supports evolutionary theory, and that there aren't even any tests for finding evidence to support ID, how can you even make this claim? A scientific theory is a rigorous investigation into natural phenomena resulting in a model to explain such occurances which is supported by all of the evidence to date and has never been shown to be false despite testing. ID is none of these.

Again I emphasise, ID is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination, no more than astrology and alchemy (these last points were even admitted by Behe in the Dover Trial).

So if neither idea can be adequately proved or disproved, how can we consider eliminating one or the other from the body of thought about the topic? Would not the more scientifically objective method of teaching the subject include all major theories? Would not the best course of action for the advancement of scientific thought be to discuss the major theories in the hopes of sparking interest in young people who may go on to make scientific advancements in the field?

Put simply, no. See my above answer for why.

Would you advocate teaching "Intelligent Falling" as an opposition theory to gravity? How about demonic possession as an alternative to the Theory of Germ Transmission of Disease? Or that kangaroos cause earthquakes? (my girlfriend insisted on that last question)

Clearly the right thing to do is teach our children the basic tenets of all the competing theories. While I believe God created the universe, I expect a High School science teacher to explain the Big Bang theory to my children as part of their education. I will be concerned if he does not. It has nothing to do with a Church and State issue! We as a society have a responsibility to expose our children and young adults to a wide variety of ideas to better their education. Limiting what they can think about places limits on their minds. How does limiting the realm of ideas improve our educational institutions, especially ideas that have yet to be disproved? The answer is it doesn’t, and therefore cannot be justified under any pretense of “scientific” objectivity.

Clearly it is NOT the correct thing to do in science classes any more than you would teach about the theory of evolution in church.

No-one is trying to stop your kids from thinking, but high school is not the level to be debating about philosophy dressed as science against science. Teach them science as defined by scientists, and teach them anything else in the appropriate place. ID could be in philosophy, mythology or world religions class at the moment, as it does not even remotely classify as science.

But if the academic thing to do is expose students to competing ideas, then why do so many “academics” oppose teaching Intelligent Design? Therein may be the real question, and the underlying reason why this is such a big issue. I submit the political and social objectives of those opposed to Intelligent Design are the real reason this is a front page news story. The test is simple: ask yourself what is gained and what is lost by teaching competing theories, then ask yourself why people who have supposedly dedicated their lives to the advancement of human understanding of the natural world would want to place limits on the body of knowledge concerning that understanding? Your answer, if you’ve been objective at all, should shed some light on what’s wrong with America’s educational system.

It isn't. At high school level the academic thing to do is teach the students about the current established science. High school is not the place for scientific debate, this should be left to degree or even postgraduate level where the debates have knowledgable individuals on both sides. After all, how can a high school student be prepared to discuss evolutionary theory if he has been brought up to believe that it deals with the very start of life on this planet, or even further back to include things like the start of the universe, as some creationist propagandists would have you believe.


If there is any brainwashing going on in the public school system, it is the propagation of the liberal left's ideologies at the exclusion of more traditional moral philosophies. And while I can grant that maybe ID belongs in a philosophy class as opposed to a science class, I think it's impossible to teach the science class perspective without mentioning it.

Why mention ID except to say that it's creationism disguised as science with no evidence to support it?

[justinksw]

I created the universe.

Prove me wrong. :D

[snow_tiger]

Totally owned :D

What Dawkins said is totally right. How can you reject one theory for being way to complex (evolution), only to replace it with an when more complex idea (an intelligent designer).

And if an intelligent designer was needed to created life, who created the intelligent designer, and so on. This idea is never ending. It just replaces one question with another.
Not actually true, Homer J.

Let me preface that I could care less about evolution, ID, etc... I believe in a Creator. Evolutions could or could not be true. Whatever. It is a seperate issue unto itself, and aside from creation.

But, I think what the "religious" are asking is a valid question. If the universe began in a "big bang" of one particle, which evolved from disorder, to order to ordered life, then where did this particle come from. We have a right to ask this since you are claiming to explain our physical reality (space-time).

The religious community DO have an answer for your bolded side-step, merely using science's very own Einstein and simple logic.

(A) Space-time are interconnected; there isn't one without the other. (B) a creator of space (and time, mind you) would have to be OUTSIDE of space (and thus time). (C) Anything outside of space, being outside of time, would have neither a beginning nor an end (sound familliar?).

Again, I will prosthelatise none of this debat. I will, however, take the time to comment that the defenders here of evolution that use belittling and insults show a closed mind of their own, and a lack of debating skills. I mean, come on, if you are so sure of yourself, do you really need to claim someone as needing cleansing from the gene pool? Everyone involved here should step back and question why they are so emotionally charged enough to use it as a slur campaign.

peace out...

[wrydolphin]

DCombatives:
There is no scientific debate over whether evolution occured. This is because there are no credable scientists that would ever say that creationism or intelligent design are credable *scientific* thoeries. As a science teacher, if you want me to present the debates over evolution in class, fine no problem. For there are many debates within the scientific community how HOW evolution works. I know most of the prevalent ones and would be happy to go over them in class.

However, it is NOT my job to teach children religion. That is the parent's job and the church of their choice. My job is to teach science. Nothing more nothing less. And to even dignify creationism or intelligent design by bringing them up in class is to give them more credit then they merit. If you want religion taught, that's fine. Do it. But don't foist your job off on me.

Also, keep in mind, the only religion that a person can teach is their own. Do you really want someone else to take over that and teach your kids their religion? Cause I am Buddist, and I think that there are quite a few parents who would be miffed it I taught my religion in my science class in the small Texas town I teach in. Don't you?

[wrydolphin]

And on a lighter note:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/stevesong.html

The singing Steves, curtousy the NCSE and the Steve Project. :)

[snow_tiger]

wrydolphin, technically, it is your job to teach whatever your employer mandates that you teach. If you disagree with your job responsibilities, you are free to do as the rest of us if that situation arises and seek other employment.

With that said, I agree 100% with you as to the teaching of religion. It is my responsibility as a parent to guide my children in these areas, and it would be my neglect to seek others to do so.

[wrydolphin]

Technically, you are correct. And yes, I would walk rather then teach ID or say that evolution is not correct or the only scientifiic theory that explains biological diversity. When you consider the general state of American education, it boggles the mind that people would do anything to cause it to degenerate more.

And I am glad that we agree on parental responsiability. I know I generally only deal with the down side as in high school at least, the only parents you see on a regular basis are the ones who have porblem children, so its nice to see parents being parents. Reminds me that there are plenty of you guys out there who are taking it seriously. :) Even if we don't agree.

[snow_tiger]

Hey, it diagreement makes the world go round. ;)

I enjoy the debates more if a kernel of respect can be garnered on both sides.

Yake care!

[aikiMac]

Brainwashing children is a GOOD thing?
...
The ID camp realise that the church has failed got keep members and gain new members and therefore it want to sneakily go in through the back door and indoctrinate children who are incapable of making such life choices.
In a rather crude way, you just hit on the issue: the is a "battle," so to speak, over truth. Maybe I should say "Truth," capital T. Evolution (as for example by Richard Dawkins, the author you cited) necessarily carries with it certain assumptions and certain consequences. Intelligent Design carries certain assumptions and certain consequences. I already noted, point by point, fundamental assumptions upon which Dawkins basis his belief in evolution. Those assumptions might be false. And, the conclusions he draws might contradict certain other "truths" (I'll allow them to be questioned) taken as fact by many people.

And vice versa. It works both ways. So now we have a conflict: whose truth is more right? Who has more captital-T truth? Honestly, if we disallow the assumptions that Dawkins made in his book "The Blind Watchmaker," would we not arrive at Intelligent Design? I honestly think we would.

Dawkins and other exponents of evolution ignore evidences within human history for the existence of a God. This is a seriously weak point in their argument. Intelligent Design advocates do not necessarily ignore historical evidences. That's to their credit.

ID does not have to be the Genesis creation story.


Try reading this article which I posted earlier. Quite a good read ;) http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
I read it some time ago. It's more of the same narrow-minded insults that he put in "The Blind Watchmaker." I'm disappointed that he cannot understand people.



A loving God sending people to Hell for no believing in something they'd never even heard of. Makes no sense to me either... (it's been a while since we had our last judgement debate.
Aye, we're overdue for another heart-to-heart talk. Perhaps the assumption that "they'd never even heard of it" is wrong, eh? ;)

[Maverick]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Forty years ago or whatever, when almost all school principals and school teachers and students went to a church on Saturday or Sunday and worshipped this God or that God, and talked about God with each other on weekends, a group of atheists arose and forbid people who talk about God with each other on weekends out of school, to talk about God with each other on weekdays in school. And so atheism was force-fed upon us against much outcry.

Now some people want to do the reverse, and you see fit to cry "foul" ?! How so?

Because the theist side is clearly total garbage?

[aikiMac]

Because the theist side is clearly total garbage?
:love: Group hug, group hug. Feel the love from Maverick. :love:

[wrydolphin]

Evolution (indeed science) is fact, not truth. Facts are provable. Truths, while debatable, are not provable. There is a body of evidence from which we can DEDUCT the theory of evolution. History "proving" that God exists, only does so by inductive reasoning. I have yet to see anyone prove deductively that God exists. You can have faith that there is a God (in what ever form you prescribe to) but you do not have proof.

And I do not see anyone forcing atheism upon others, just people forcing their personal interpretation of God on others. So, from my perspective, its the fundamentalists who are violating people's right to believe what they want to believe.

But more imporantly, WHAT ABOUT THOSE SINGING STEVES?

[Ikken Hisatsu]

for my two cents-

I went to high school to get an education that will help me later. I go to Uni so I can learn and get a job doing what I enjoy. If I applied for a scientific position with this ID stuff I would be laughed out of the place.

I dont know if everyone missed this but in the big real world outside of high school that information about ID you might learn is nothing more than a story you can bore people with at your mcdonalds christmas function. I would definitely not want my kids to learn about crap like that which is going to be of no use at all when they leave school. if people want to learn about it they can go to church or whatever. if they want to learn the science that people use in the REAL WORLD, they can go to a place of learning. I dont even see why this is a question.

[Lurch]

hm - first post in ages.

Anyway, having zipped through this thread as quickly as I decently could, it seems to me that there a few points that that can be drawn from this thread, the arguments involved and their wider implications, to whit:

Science and religion need not be incompatible, but there is a certain determination from the more fundamentalist creationists to use (psuedo) science to try to find 'evidence' to support their beliefs; most of this 'science' is garbage.

Evolution is a scientific theory; it cannot be proved, as the creationists demand it must be, but may be disproved. However, no-one has yet been able to disprove it. The arguments trotted out with a monotonous regularity by the creationist camp in an attempt to do so depend largely upon the ignorance of the people (ie Joe Public) to whom they address their arguments; it's easier to understand 'god did it' than the incredibly complex processes by which evolution operates, both on the bio-chemical level and the macroscopic zoological/speciation scales.

Creationism depends entirely upon belief and therefore offers no evidence whatsoever (except for the spurious evidence as mentioned above). Creationists do demand proof from the evolutionary camp, however; this has been given time and again as far as is possible for any scientific theory. The creationists then exploit the fact that a theory cannot be proven, only disproven as an argument to fall back to their default setting of 'God did it' as though that answered any questions (which if you are given to blind faith I suppose it does, but I for one am not convinced).

Creationism is not, therefore, a scientific theory in any way whatsoever. The fact that it is to be taught as such is at best laughable, at worst terrifying. The ignorant preaching to the ignorant, the blind leading the blind. And the likes of this George Gilder, who sounds like he knows what he is talking about shows that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is indeed king.

Anyway, what about the wider implications? If creationism - sorry, Intelligent Design - is to be considered a science, that surely opens the door for some alarming consequences. Does it not mean that, if I find myself in court facing charges for some hideous crime I can simply pipe up "The Devil made me do it!" and walk away a free man?

My apologies for rambling.

[Topher]

Not actually true, Homer J.

Let me preface that I could care less about evolution, ID, etc... I believe in a Creator. Evolutions could or could not be true. Whatever. It is a seperate issue unto itself, and aside from creation.

But, I think what the "religious" are asking is a valid question. If the universe began in a "big bang" of one particle, which evolved from disorder, to order to ordered life, then where did this particle come from. We have a right to ask this since you are claiming to explain our physical reality (space-time).

The religious community DO have an answer for your bolded side-step, merely using science's very own Einstein and simple logic.

(A) Space-time are interconnected; there isn't one without the other. (B) a creator of space (and time, mind you) would have to be OUTSIDE of space (and thus time). (C) Anything outside of space, being outside of time, would have neither a beginning nor an end (sound familliar?).

Again, I will prosthelatise none of this debat. I will, however, take the time to comment that the defenders here of evolution that use belittling and insults show a closed mind of their own, and a lack of debating skills. I mean, come on, if you are so sure of yourself, do you really need to claim someone as needing cleansing from the gene pool? Everyone involved here should step back and question why they are so emotionally charged enough to use it as a slur campaign.

peace out...

The whole reason for creationists rejecting evolution is that it is just to complex to have just happened, and that an intelligent designer was needed. Based on that idea - that an intelligent designer is needed to created life - who created the designer. I'm mean it didn't just "happen" did it ;)

[Topher]

In a rather crude way, you just hit on the issue: the is a "battle," so to speak, over truth. Maybe I should say "Truth," capital T. Evolution (as for example by Richard Dawkins, the author you cited) necessarily carries with it certain assumptions and certain consequences. Intelligent Design carries certain assumptions and certain consequences. I already noted, point by point, fundamental assumptions upon which Dawkins basis his belief in evolution. Those assumptions might be false. And, the conclusions he draws might contradict certain other "truths" (I'll allow them to be questioned) taken as fact by many people.

Sure there are assumptions but science, unlike ID, doesn’t base it's final outcome on those assumptions. The creationists mould everything to their assumptions whereas in science, if the assumptions dont support the argument or leave to many gaps, then its back to the drawing board. Assumptions in science to my knowledge are often based on other facts anyway. So we know that X is fact, therefore based on this we can assume...

1. Dawkins and other exponents of evolution ignore evidences within human history for the existence of a God. This is a seriously weak point in their argument. 2. Intelligent Design advocates do not necessarily ignore historical evidences. That's to their credit.

1. Like what? Examples?

2. Only when it provides some sort of credit to their belief, but even then it’s possible to have been slanted in their favour. If historical evidence doesn’t support science they don’t reject or ignore it, or distort it so it does fit, no, they study it further and find out why.

[Wynnston]

Some great posts here that reaffirm my "faith" in man's ability to use logic and reason :D

Why do some fundamentalist Christians insist on trying to drag current society backwards by several hundred years? What are you all so scared of? As has been mentioned here time and time again, science cannot address issues of faith, it's not designed to. So, why are you trying to disprove parts of science with faith based arguments? Why does your brand of christianity seem to involve abandoning reason and logic for superstition and untestable declarations of faith? Why is it so important to you that an intelligent designer is behind most things in the world and believed to be true by everyone around you? Does not believing in this invalidate the rest of your faith?

Take Gregor Mendel for instance, his basic theories on genetics and inheritance have not been disproved since their proposal some 150 years ago and have formed the basis of much of the subsequent work on genetics and evolutionary biology. But he was a monk and one therefore presumes a somewhat religious man. Didn't stop him being a first rate scientist whose theories took about 50 years to be appreciated they were so ahead of their time.

So cmon, Aiki and the others - open your minds, put aside your fears that science is trying to disprove the existance of God and read some decent books on science. Your society and humanity in general will thank you for it in the long run. I really wouldn't like to see the US turn into a bastion of ignorance, fear and superstition and also still have the most powerful military in the world.

[bod]

And, slightly off topic, I find aikiMac's above post to be a textbook example of a religious modus operandi in that it demonizes one group (in this case, atheists) and paints them as an enemy. Speaking from experience, most atheists are not anti-religion. Rather, they are simply individuals who feel that religion does not satisfactorily explain the world around them. Again from my personal experience, they are often more tolerant and accepting than people who subscribe to religion. Blaming the failings of intelligent design on a bunch of conspiring, crybaby atheists is frankly not only misinformed but also insulting.

Omicron is most definitely correct.

[bod]

Originally Posted by aikiMac
"1. Dawkins and other exponents of evolution ignore evidences within human history for the existence of a God. This is a seriously weak point in their argument. 2. Intelligent Design advocates do not necessarily ignore historical evidences. That's to their credit."

Are you one of those guys who believes that there is actual physical evidence that backs up bible stories like the Flood, Mosses... Jesus?

[Johnno]

Originally Posted by aikiMac
"1. Dawkins and other exponents of evolution ignore evidences within human history for the existence of a God. This is a seriously weak point in their argument. 2. Intelligent Design advocates do not necessarily ignore historical evidences. That's to their credit."

Are you one of those guys who believes that there is actual physical evidence that backs up bible stories like the Flood, Mosses... Jesus?

Hang on a tick... even if there was conclusive evidence that Moses and Jesus existed, it wouldn't make creationism plausible!

But if it was Adam and Eve then you might have a case! ;)

[snow_tiger]

The whole reason for creationists rejecting evolution is that it is just to complex to have just happened, and that an intelligent designer was needed. Based on that idea - that an intelligent designer is needed to created life - who created the designer. I'm mean it didn't just "happen" did it ;)
Uhm... Did you even read my post?

A creator would have to be outside of the creation; a creator would be outside of "time" as time is a part of the creation; beginnings and ends are concepts of "time"; logically, beginnings and ends would not be concepts tied to a creator.

I'm sorry if that is too complex. In my opinion, a 4-deep string of logic is a bit less complex than you make it out to be. And it's far less complex than the current other explanation which, as I understand it, is that our "plane" and time with it, has just always been here. There was no first cause for what we know.

It's really neither here nor there, though. Christians will say, "in the beginning God". Atheists will say, "in the begin... Er... In the... Uh... Well, this never began, so I guess none of this is really here?"

Either argument is fine by me.

[RR1]

"I believe in evolution and intelligent design, I belive God created us in his image, but I also believe that god is a monkey." - Bill Mahr

that says it all.

[Aegis]

A creator would have to be outside of the creation; a creator would be outside of "time" as time is a part of the creation; beginnings and ends are concepts of "time"; logically, beginnings and ends would not be concepts tied to a creator.

Any cause for the universe would have to exist outside space and time as we know it, unless of course by some weird science the universe contains its own cause (which would be amusing to say the least!). However, there is no reason to assume that such a cause is supernatural, sentient or indeed and specified deity. The atheist simply assumes that like everything else we can observe, the universe has a natural cause.

I'm sorry if that is too complex. In my opinion, a 4-deep string of logic is a bit less complex than you make it out to be. And it's far less complex than the current other explanation which, as I understand it, is that our "plane" and time with it, has just always been here. There was no first cause for what we know.

I don't think modern science assumes that anything has been here forever. The Big Bang model is well accepted, and shows a time and space singularity at t=0, i.e. that time and space began. No modern theory assumes that everything has been here indefinitely, at least not one that I've heard.

It's really neither here nor there, though. Christians will say, "in the beginning God". Atheists will say, "in the begin... Er... In the... Uh... Well, this never began, so I guess none of this is really here?"

Either argument is fine by me.

That's very much a strawman of the atheist position. An atheist might well say "in the beginning, Big Bang", or "in the beginning, colliding branes", etc. Although "we don't know" would probably be a much more honet answer from either side.

In any case, I have never heard any atheist argue that "this never began".

[snow_tiger]

Aegis,
I apologize that I don't remember the exact term used for the "infinite-backwards" denial of a first cause. I will try to pinpoint the term so that you can research it. the following touches on it, as quoted from big-bang literature.

"Does the existence of a big bang mean that time has a beginning? It’s not simply that clocks suddenly began ticking at a certain moment, but that during the first 10-43 second of the birth of the universe was also the birth of time (and space) itself. This conclusion can be drawn from what we can say about singularities: all laws of physics as we know them will tend to collapse as the limit of a singularity is reached."

This may sound very similar to my argument of causality above, except when noting the big bang's definition of how the universe was birthed. remember that the big band birth was an infinite mass crammed in an infinitely small space which more or less exploded into everything in our space-time plane. So, we see above the conclusion that creation itself was stuffed inside a microcosm, but that time, as part of creation itself, did not happen until mere seconds after creation itself expanded out into creation itself. We have mass (the pre-big-bang universe) exploding out into mass (the post-big-bang) universe. We have, quite literally, the created creating the created.

Of merely an interesting note is that his model says a short time after the bang, time came into existence. lol

Speaking specifically to causality in the universe, the same paper states:

"In this paper I discuss whether there are sound philosophical arguments for the thesis that the singularity has a cause. My conclusion shall be negative."

I submit my argument was not a straw man. Thank you.

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/did_the_big_bang_have_a_cause.htm

[aikiMac]

1. Like what? Examples?
and

Are you one of those guys who believes that there is actual physical evidence that backs up bible stories like the Flood, Mosses... Jesus?

Jesus is a good place to start, yes. Jesus and Easter. That's always a good place to start. If Easter happened on the day that the Old Testament prophets said it would happen, and in the manner they said it would happen, and in the place where they said it would happen, then we have some serious problems to sort out, you know? Things will look quite different at that point.

[Topher]

Uhm... Did you even read my post?

A creator would have to be outside of the creation; a creator would be outside of "time" as time is a part of the creation; beginnings and ends are concepts of "time"; logically, beginnings and ends would not be concepts tied to a creator.

I'm sorry if that is too complex. In my opinion, a 4-deep string of logic is a bit less complex than you make it out to be. And it's far less complex than the current other explanation which, as I understand it, is that our "plane" and time with it, has just always been here. There was no first cause for what we know.

It's really neither here nor there, though. Christians will say, "in the beginning God". Atheists will say, "in the begin... Er... In the... Uh... Well, this never began, so I guess none of this is really here?"

Either argument is fine by me.

But that dosn't provide an answer, of a means of finding one. No one even knows what lies outside our universe (multiverse?), so again it's just speculation.

The point is if somthing needs to be created as the creationists argue, then something/one must have created your god, regardless on there it is.

The other point is creationists argue that evolution is just to complex dispite all of the evidance, yet they replace that "complex" idea with one even more complex - god, in an even more complex way - a creator being outside the universe.

[snow_tiger]

But that dosn't provide an answer, of a means of finding one. No one even knows what lies outside our universe (multiverse?), so again it's just speculation.

The point is if somthing needs to be created as the creationists argue, then something/one must have created your god, regardless on there it is.

The other point is creationists argue that evolution is just to complex dispite all of the evidance, yet they replace that "complex" idea with one even more complex - god, in an even more complex way - a creator being outside the universe.
No. The point isn't "if something must be created". The law of causality only applies within the context of the law. Even the big bang physicists relay this. The law of causality is tied to this space-time continuum. Beyond the plane which we inhabit, all bets are off as far as our laws go. This is because the law of causality speaks to the need of a beginning. Outside of the time point on our 4-dimensional reality, there is neither a beginning, middle or end. There just IS.

I still fail to see how something outside of our reality creating our reality is more complex than the belief that thermodynamics is wrong-- that nothing became disorder became order. That inert became life. All by accident.

If it makes you feel better, take the word God out of it. I don't care if you say that our universe is a bunch of turds swirling down some alien toilet. It has a beginning, so it MUST have a cause.

Take care.

[Topher]

I'm not arguing that because no one can say for sure if something lies beyond our universe or not, or whether it's simply a multiverse. But for arguments sake, lets say there was/is a god outside of our universe... how did it get there/was created. This idea is a hell of a lot more complex than that of evolution. Sure there are gaps, but consider all of the evidence so far and to deny it is blind.

It is not provable, and therefore goes back to the original argument that it cannot taught as science, but rather philosophy. I guess the only scientific part to it is what is beyond our universe, but then even that bleeds into philosophical discussion.

My point that the creationists say something just cannot happen, so this "god" outside of our reality still must be created. You might argue diffrent laws but this getting into falsifiability. If the god was not created, it is god is infinite, which is the case you might also argue that the universe is infinite, but the Big Bang being the "start" as we've come to know it.

To ask what caused the Big Bang or what was before it is a valid question, something I’m interested in but I’d rather allow science the chance to explore it than simple turn to religion simply because its rather “complex”.

My opinion is that all the elements needed for life were present and hence life began. Now whether this is unique or common is another matter altogether. Saying that, maybe our universe is in a petri dish on some scientist’s desk somewhere :p

If i were to even consider in any branch of ID it would be deism/the clockmaker hypothesis - that some higher power created the universe, then left it to its own devices. But again, this is philosophy not science.

[Aegis]

I submit my argument was not a straw man. Thank you.[/url]

I still hold that it was a straw man. Most atheists will not fumble so much for an answer when asked what caused the universe, nor will they deny that the universe had a beginning. Most will answer that the universe started with the big bang. That's why I referred to the example answers as a straw man, not because there are no people who believe in an indefinite universe.

Put it this way, If I said that all theists were bloody-thirsty fanatics, it would probably be very similar in terms of a minority being represented as a majority.

[Vexed]

we are " Evolving " and their has been some " Intelligent " posts.

Do we truly know the meaning or answer of the thread. Everyone will have an opinion as you read the past and future posts, but it will always end up in the same place as it began, even if their is no answer to the same, as not answering, leaves us at the place it all started.

[Topher]

Science is in no rush to provide answers. Just because something seems unexplainable, they don’t assume supernatural explanations.

Anyone interested should watch “The Story of God” on BBC1 tomorrow. It’s about the existence of the universe in relation to god, and how it has changed over time and in different societies.

[aikiMac]

I'm not arguing that because no one can say for sure if something lies beyond our universe or not, or whether it's simply a multiverse. But for arguments sake, lets say there was/is a god outside of our universe... how did it get there/was created. This idea is a hell of a lot more complex than that of evolution.
Dude, you missed the obvious: God doesn't have to be explained, because God can't be explained, because our scientific laws are not valid where he comes from.

I think it was in this thread that someone said that our scientific laws break down at the singularity of the Big Bang (or creation, or whatever you want to call it). Well, apply that statement. God is outside the singularity.

In truth, then, atheism is massively more complicated than theism, because the atheist has to someday explain the cause of the Big Bang (or whatever). The theist doesn't, because the atheist's own rules say he can't.

[Aegis]

Dude, you missed the obvious: God doesn't have to be explained, because God can't be explained, because our scientific laws are not valid where he comes from.

This is exactly why a more theistic methodology to science would never work. At some point, someone would say "we can't know any more about this topic because god is unknowable". A naturalistic scientist would continue to probe and research even when it becomes extremely difficult to even speculate.

The difference between the two is staggering. One proposes an end to research after a while, the other is open-ended and will settle for nothing short of complete explanation (which will probbaly never happen in even the simplest of subjects).

"God did it" as suggested clandestinely by ID proponents is useless in terms of science, as it explains nothing, offers no insight and allows us to make no predictions, while the standard theory of evolution does all 3.

I think it was in this thread that someone said that our scientific laws break down at the singularity of the Big Bang (or creation, or whatever you want to call it). Well, apply that statement. God is outside the singularity.

I think that was me.

This is fine, it's what you believe. I on the other hand don't. There may have been some external cause (seems reasonably likely, but with the current research into uncaused phenomena who can be sure any more?), but to me there is no need to assume that such a thing is sentient, let alone specifically the christian god. You need faith to believe that, and faith is not something that should be required in science.

In truth, then, atheism is massively more complicated than theism, because the atheist has to someday explain the cause of the Big Bang (or whatever). The theist doesn't, because the atheist's own rules say he can't.

Indeed. But complicated is not always bad or wrong. Sometimes the simplest explanations turn out to be flawed. Flat Earth springs to mind.

[blessed_samurai]

I thought this was interesting....

I picked up the paper the other day and atheism is now (legally and nationally) recognized as a religion.

I have a question. Assuming we taught Creationism in the school, wouldn't it be a rather short lesson? We, as Christians, believe that God created all and that's pretty much that...what would be left to teach?

On a seperate note, keep up the good debating.

[snow_tiger]

This is exactly why a more theistic methodology to science would never work. At some point, someone would say "we can't know any more about this topic because god is unknowable". A naturalistic scientist would continue to probe and research even when it becomes extremely difficult to even speculate.

The difference between the two is staggering. One proposes an end to research after a while, the other is open-ended and will settle for nothing short of complete explanation (which will probbaly never happen in even the simplest of subjects).

"God did it" as suggested clandestinely by ID proponents is useless in terms of science, as it explains nothing, offers no insight and allows us to make no predictions, while the standard theory of evolution does all 3.



I think that was me.

This is fine, it's what you believe. I on the other hand don't. There may have been some external cause (seems reasonably likely, but with the current research into uncaused phenomena who can be sure any more?), but to me there is no need to assume that such a thing is sentient, let alone specifically the christian god. You need faith to believe that, and faith is not something that should be required in science.



Indeed. But complicated is not always bad or wrong. Sometimes the simplest explanations turn out to be flawed. Flat Earth springs to mind.

Uhm... What is the difference between a deistic outlook in science and a philosophical one? I offer the following:

"Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.""

*W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

So, you are saying theology and science don't mix, and scientist are saying that they choose their interpretation of results by philosophy. So the only difference I see is that of positive and negative presupposition. The deist may filter on God is there; the scientist filters on God is by no means there. You are saying that deistic science is close-minded. Science itself, by limiting explanatory models based on philosophical presuppositions, is being closed minded.

There is a double-standard to your argument. (With that said, I always enjoy the dicussion, Aegis!)

[Topher]

Dude, you missed the obvious: God doesn't have to be explained, because God can't be explained, because our scientific laws are not valid where he comes from.
And your missing the point because if you want creationism in science class it must undergo the usual scientific rules, hence – god must be explained. Othwise, go into philosophy and religious classrooms.

When religion/creatiomism cannot be explained is simply falls on the standard cop-out argument that it is unexplainable :rolleyes: It relies on faith and hence it has no place in science. End of story.

One final point, you say our laws are not valid where he comes from, so how can you come to the conclusion that he even comes from there?

God is outside the singularity.
That isn't science, that is, belief, faith.

In truth, then, atheism is massively more complicated than theism, because the atheist has to someday explain the cause of the Big Bang (or whatever). The theist doesn't, because the atheist's own rules say he can't.
Sure science is complex, but what is absurd is rejecting evolution/science saying it isn't possible and is too complex, but then saying the idea of god is :rolleyes: One is blind faith, the other is constant study and review based on evidence.

[Aegis]

Uhm... What is the difference between a deistic outlook in science and a philosophical one?

Depends on what you mean by philosophy. The actual difference between naturalism and deism is pretty small, until you get to the origin of the universe. Even then many deists still look at the start of existance through a scientific method rather than a theistic one. All depends who you talk to I guess.

I offer the following:

"Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.""

I know several astronomers and cosmologists who would almost certainly disagree with the geocentricism/philosophy comments in that article. (which I assume came from here: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ ) After all, direct observation of stars and galaxies can show us that we are not in the centre of a perfectly symetric universe. Since this isn't really my field, I'll not say anything further on this.

So, you are saying theology and science don't mix, and scientist are saying that they choose their interpretation of results by philosophy.

In all fairness, that was one scientist, not all scientists. And I disagreed with his assessment anyway, unless you cound the scientific method as a philosophy.

So the only difference I see is that of positive and negative presupposition.

Science by nature assumes nothing without evidence. If you assume a supernatural deity without some strong reason for doing so, you aren't doing science. As such, scientists who are also religious separate their religion from their science, or use science as a tool to expand on their religion. For example, christian scientists (note: NOT creation "scientists") use science to explore their god's world, but they follow the scientific method in order to do so. This is verified using the peer-review process to ensure that the personal views of scientists do not interfere with their work.

The deist may filter on God is there; the scientist filters on God is by no means there.

Not sure what you mean here.

You are saying that deistic science is close-minded.

I most certainly am not.

Science itself, by limiting explanatory models based on philosophical presuppositions, is being closed minded.

Science is science. It does pretty well at what it does. There are certainly more useful theories and discoveries coming out of real scientific investigations than out of places like the Discovery Institute. In any case, if your problem is with science then you have to do the exact same thing everywhere in science. As I have already mentioned in this thread, you would have to rework gravity to include god, disease theory, chemistry, etc. After all, if the evidence is unreliable with a naturalistic methodology in one branch of science, it must be in the other branches too, right?

I did like the onion's parody of ID "Intelligent Falling" :)

There is a double-standard to your argument. (With that said, I always enjoy the dicussion, Aegis!)

I really don't see any double standard to my argument, but if you'd like to clarify further, I'm all ears (to the extent that one can be all ears online)

[wrydolphin]

Since we left the realm of biological sciences, I have chosen to remain somewhat quiet. But I did want to add this. Science is not about atheism. Or theism. Nor is it agnostic. These are personal religous veiws. Science is, and should be, about what we can deduct from the evidence at hand.

That said, there are many scientists who believe in God in some form or another. Also keep in mind, there are also scientists from pretty much all of the world's major and minor religions. So you can't even break it down into science is against God because then you would have to go back and define which God exactly. Not to mention the thousands of creation myths that are running about. So, if you want to present creationism or ID in a science class, which myth? Which creation? How do you prove the correctness of one creation myth over another? Popularity? Numbers? The loudness of a myth's political machinery?

And if you have to think of creation as a miracle, well, indeed it is... in the same way that every healthy birth is a miracle. The science of conception, development and birth does not take away from the miracle of birth. When was the last time you heard of people protesting at a OBGYN's office because he or she was teaching reproductive anatomy that was not in line with the understanding of those who wrote the Bible?

[Topher]

Science isn't a type of "belief". Specifically, it's a lack of belief. Remember that "not believing that God exists" is not equivalent to "believing that God does not exist".

On another topic, it’s interesting to see the different beliefs in god in different part of the world and in different religions. Buddhism for example doesn’t necessarily reject the idea of god; they just think that it’s irrelevant in their journey. Hinduism on the other hand has millions of gods! And instead of sculpting themselves to the religion, they shape the religion to themselves.

If the ID people want to "teach all sides" as they say (even though that is impossible to do) then they should drop the Christian perspective/bias and introduce all types of god(s) and ideas of a higher being(s). But doing this would essentially merge the division between science and philosophy even further. If this were to happen I would expect students to gain a philosophical mind in science class! I for one do not want future scientists being educated in this manner.

[Moony]

Egads....why did i have to find this topic when i had a chemistry report to write and god knows how much other stuff to do!

As it happens I'm a trainee Science teacher, secondary level (that's age 11 to 16 complusary and 18 noncompulsary for those non-English). Will i teach ID in science lessons? Not if i can help it. And why not i bet some of you are asking, bescause as has already said here it's *not*, by ANY stretch of the imagination, Science. End of, no quetions, plese sit in the corner with the dunce hat on. I could walk into my uni library when it opens and find all sorts of loverly journals, i could walk into the library i did my undergrad studies at, both will have a plethera of peer review stuff on the Sciences.......but no ID.

I might give it lesson time in form tutor periods or PSHE lessons, but it wouldn't be a great deal. You want to tell your kid to learn stories about where they came from then you do it.

You'll have to excuse me if i seem a little blunt and/or illmannered but it's late, i'm tired and i'm trying to do some work via the all nighter method.

Does what i say above mean i'm anti religion? Nope, i fully believe that everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs and belief systems and when not taking the literal point of view i like nothing better than discussing things from a religious point of view.

Anyway, trying to stay on topic......

Again, loads have people have said this. Science does not set out to prove or disprove God. Unlike the view point of a certain 'Nutcase' Hovind (stealling your thing here Aeggy), in fact one of his things that really cracks me up is when he says that Charles 'Charlie' Lyel was anti-God and anti-Bible. Far from it, Lyel was a creationist and believed that all igneous rocks crystalised out of flood sediments, nice idea in a way.....completely blown out by James Hutton though.Hovind then goes on to point the blame at the Darwins origin of the species on Darwin reading Lyel's book, but he's wrong on that count too. I think i'll wrap up my anti-Hovind bit by pointing out that he also goes on about the willfully ignorant...as in those will fully ignorant of the Bible. However i'm going to call him a pot, as he's calling the kettle black! Since like always he's in the camp of those that are willfully ignorant of science and are relying on psuedo-science naffness.

For those of you willing to pick up a book and have a read through some things i'd recomend 'Almost everyones guide to science' by John Gribbon. It's not a heavy tomb and is highly readable. In language understandable by all and avoiding all baby talk he rattles through some of the 'big/key ideas' in science on a tour de force. And ending quite nicely, i think, by talking about the big bang and some of the newer things relating to string theory and the like. In this closing chapter he talks about a current(?) theory/idea/speculation that (and this is a nutshell version) the big bang formed from a massive explosion and spreading out of matter, with weird stuff happening very early on due to quantum stuff. Yes i know that this is 'known' by most people, however it moves on......black holes suck matter and energy in and gobble it up to a tiny singularity. So the big bang started from a singularity and black holes have a singularity at their centre....this moves on the the idea that, what if (with what we know about modern science) our bigbang singularity was/is the heart of a black whol in another galaxy/universe/dimension. This, in scientific terms, would explain the start of things and how the big bang occured. I'm not sure what the proof is on this so you'd have to check up on it but from what i remember of the book it's allegedly provable by the theory and maths.

And then here's another way of looking at the 'big bang', one i've kinda mulled over in my head for a bit......(this is were my tiredness shows).... How do we know that we're not some sort of experiment or simultaion? Like someone else said we could be sat in someones petri dish somewhere with that person oogling over our development and taking notes. Or (and this is partly based on something i read) how can we tell that we're not someones PC game (who here's heard of the sims) and that our physicals laws are in fact the paramaters of a game. I love playing sims and if i'm in a bad mood i'll make a sim of the person that's annoyed me and do nastey things to it, also i make sims of the people i like and work hard at making things cushty for them. Surely in that context that would make me God? (Dis)Prove that if you will.

Moony
Wants to know how she can ream off stuff form this but struggle wither her report......

[bod]

Even the Vatican is against I.D.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1327926&page=1

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," :D

[holyheadjch]

Its taken me hours to read this thread (with a side order of actual work) so this may be a bit long.

It astounds me that after 13 pages people still cant see why ID has no place in Science classes. It is not supported by verifiable evidence therefore it is not science, this has nothing to do with atheism or pantheism or any other theism, this is science, if there aint no evidence it aint science. There is no gray area, its not science so it doesn't belong in science classes. I'll say it once more...Intelligent Design is not based on Scientific Principles, therefore it is not science and should not be taught as such.

What scares me most of all is the insistance of the fundamentalists. Grabbing children when they are young, indoctrinating them. Reminds me of tactics used 70 years ago by a fellow named Adolf. He forced school teachers to teach their pupils that the aryan race was superior, 'theories' and 'evidence' were gathered and stuffed into government approved textbooks. The parallels with this intelligent design garbage (and will remain garbage until I see some actual evidence for it, rather than evidence against evolution) is terrifying.

What also shocks me is that there seems to be an aggressive anti-science movement. We can show categorically with verifiable evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old, this is not something that can be logically disputed, so the creationist lobby attacks carbon dating - which is ridiculous.

IF God exists, then I imagine he's looking down on this mess, embarassed, embarassed that a species with the capacity for sentient thought is incapable of recognising a metaphor, which is what most educated people (religious or not) recognise it to be.

And here a thought on the idea that God created us in his image. Is it likely that God, who is all powerful would have created us with so many flaws in our skeletal structure

[AuHg]

And here a thought on the idea that God created us in his image. Is it likely that God, who is all powerful would have created us with so many flaws in our skeletal structure

Yeah, my persistent left knee and I think one day my lower back will go as well.
IMHO, I reckon ID will go away soon and possibly it will never reach outside of America or it doesnt permeate fully into other countries school syllabus. So, I can breathe a sigh of relief. phew!!

[Topher]

Like someone else said we could be sat in someones petri dish somewhere with that person oogling over our development and taking notes. Or (and this is partly based on something i read) how can we tell that we're not someones PC game (who here's heard of the sims) and that our physicals laws are in fact the paramaters of a game. I love playing sims and if i'm in a bad mood i'll make a sim of the person that's annoyed me and do nastey things to it, also i make sims of the people i like and work hard at making things cushty for them. Surely in that context that would make me God? (Dis)Prove that if you will.

I find this stuff/theories are very interesting. This is philosophy, not science and is no different to discussing other "who are we" theories and religions.

[Moony]

I agree Homer, and so long as you are honest with kids and don't give too much 'vital' lesson time you can talk about this with kids in class. And when i say vital i mean there are lots of facts and other things the kids do need to learn but at the same time it's this sort of stuff the kids love doing. So you'd either do this in a PSHE lesson or get them to work fast thriugh some stuff to slip it in the time table.

Moony

[Maverick]

IMHO, I reckon ID will go away soon and possibly it will never reach outside of America

Lol, ID would never even have got this far in any other Western country.

[tbubb1]

Has anyone read "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel?
that'd prob put an end to a lot of the things people are chatting about on here lol. I haven't finished the book yet

[wrydolphin]

Because books about science are best read when written by journalists? Even if I were to waste my time on that, I have heard almost all the arguements given by those against evolution and they simply do not hold water.

Get me a reputable scientist and I might listen. But finding a reputable scientist is going to be hard.

[Aegis]

Has anyone read "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel?
that'd prob put an end to a lot of the things people are chatting about on here lol. I haven't finished the book yet
As wry pointed out, anyone can write a book, and with creationist material, someone will publish it without an in-depth check of the science claimed in the material. Compare this with the peer-review process for posting in scientific magazines, where every claim is checked, every bit of evidence scrutinised, etc before you can even get into a journal. This is why for knowledge of evolution the only sensible place to go are the journals. Even textbooks don't go through such a rigourous editing process.

However, I have heard of Strobel, and I imagine that many of his arguments have been used against me in the past, even if I have no idea what any of them are just from his name. However, in the interest of debate and discussion, would you care to post his most compelling arguments here, paraphrased or quoted?

[Aegis]

Just to add to what's already been said, here's a review (from an atheist source, yes, but the information contained in the review seems accurate... just for anyone that was going to dismiss it off-hand for the religious outlook of the author):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html

[holyheadjch]

yawn, another creationist presenting speculation as fact, and putting his lack of understanding on show for the whole world to see.

[Maverick]

Has anyone read "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel?
that'd prob put an end to a lot of the things people are chatting about on here lol. I haven't finished the book yet

I doubt it. All creationist arguments are tripe.

[tekkengod]

as usual, maverick is right on the money. and AuHg. bingo as well.
This is rather ridiculous, you want to brainwash your children, do it on your own time. but don't expect me to do the same to mine, and don't dare expect me to stand idely by while they put it into my school, i SO want them to try it in my school, in a place primarily Atheist/agnostic. it would be a hell of a fight.

[aikiMac]

as usual, maverick is right on the money. and AuHg. bingo as well.
Translation: "They said what I already believe." :rolleyes:

[tekkengod]

well, if you look REAL close, i ALMOST condoned it outside of school!!!

[aikiMac]

Aye, that you did. I haven't forgotten. :)

[tekkengod]

Aye, that you did. I haven't forgotten. :)

see, i have to watch what i say!11!!

[onyomi]

I don't see how you can go to a zoo and watch the chimpanzees playing and not believe in evolution. It's just so painfully obvious that we are descended from them. Nonetheless, I don't really see any contradiction between being a Christian and believing in evolution. I think it's pretty obvious that if there is a God who has a plan for the universe, he makes his plan come about as a natural consequence of the laws of the universe he created, not by always snapping his fingers and just making things pop out of nowhere.

I think the "made man in his image" is a reference to our self-aware nature, not our physical bodies. We are the only creatures on Earth who are self-aware, like God is self-aware. Therefore, we are in his image. Our physical bodies are obviously the imperfect result of the random process of evolution and are also clearly designed to allow us to survive and reproduce on planet Earth. You could argue that God set in motion the chain of events that would cause evolution to produce our bodies and then didn't interfere with this process in order not to interfere with our free will/make our lives too easy; but our bodies, marvelous though they are, are also clearly far from perfect.

[snow_tiger]

Even evolutionists don't believe we evolved from chimps. Just thought it worth mentioning.

[Moony]

Even evolutionists don't believe we evolved from chimps. Just thought it worth mentioning.


It's not that we evolved from them but that we share a common ancester with them!

Chimps are our nearest relative in the animal kingdom, followed closly by other primates i believe. My own knowledge of biology isn't that advanced where as my Geology is a lot more indepth (oddly enough).

From the tone of your very brief post i'd say that you were a creationist. Nothing wrong with that per say but from what i've seen some creationists really need to get themselves a lot more clued up as to what evolution is about and the supporting theories befor they try and pull it apart!!! 'Nutcase' Hovind being a prime example!!!

Moony

[Johnno]

Nonetheless, I don't really see any contradiction between being a Christian and believing in evolution. I think it's pretty obvious that if there is a God who has a plan for the universe, he makes his plan come about as a natural consequence of the laws of the universe he created, not by always snapping his fingers and just making things pop out of nowhere.Well I think that makes a lot more sense than the ID position, which tries to re-write the evidence of evolution in order to fit in with allegorical stories from the Bible.

It's still a matter of faith, but at least it doesn't fly in the face of reason.

[tekkengod]

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener.... So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds.... But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"

Antony Flew

[neb]

ARGhhhh! my A-levels in RE are coming back to me! damn you Flew DAMN YOU!! must.....discuss.....credibility.....of.......reli gious....language......

Religious language itself is the medium in which religions express their beliefs in God, faith, belief and practice. This is to say how religious people communicate within the context of God, using human language to convey something beyond the limits of our understanding, such as the infinite, e.g. when verbalising religious experiences, or when praying. Common uses of religious language include ritual, myth, symbol, and dogma.

A problem arises when using religious language for communicating these ideas, because concepts are the basis of the words used. Since individuals have different understandings of what these concepts are from one another, differences in interpretation occur. This questions how meaningful the need for religious language is for several reasons. One is that any discussion about God and belief cannot be based on common ground, and furthermore the language is equivocal, not univocal, and therefore the meaning of any assertion can be unclear. Varying interpretations and understandings of religious language is down to the fact that the words are directed towards the realm of infinite existence, something we have no physical evidence to refer to.

Let us suggest that religious language is meaningless, a view held by logical positivists, in which case we need some way of verifying such a claim. Logical positivism outlines propositions that are empirically verifiable as those which have meaning, only accepting two forms of verifiable language; analytical (by which knowledge is gained through logical reasoning I.e. ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’) and synthetic (by which language can be verified by sense experience or experiment I.e. ‘the river is flowing south’). Regarding all other propositions (or statements) as meaningless. This has come to be known as the Verification principle. As such it regards religious language as meaningless, because talk of God and the infinite is pointless as it is unverifiable by using the senses or by means of scientific experimentation. Therefore impossible to know under what conditions such statements could be proven true or false by empirical evidence. The logical positivist A.J. Ayer supported the proposition that, if a statement is unverifiable by empirical means, it must be meaningless. Although came to realise the problem that the Verification principle faced as it doesn’t account for some scientific and historical propositions that had been verified with uncertainty yet are accepted, and so attempted to revise the original principle by introducing two forms of the Verification principle; strong and weak. The Verification principle experiences another problem when its own principle is applied to it, as it turns out to be unverifiable itself as no empirical evidence can be provided to support it as a synthetic statement, nor does it confirm to its own criteria as an analytical proposition. Though this does not necessarily disregard the proposition it puts forth about the meaningfulness of religious language.

John Hick argued against the idea that religious language is unverifiable (as outlined by the Verification principle) by introducing Eschatological verification to support religious language being meaningful. Hicks argued that in death God’s existence shall then be verified as true or false, and since a means of verifying religious statements such as ‘God exists’ is now available, religious statements do have meaning. Since full verification of religious assertions will not be acquired until we die, any statements for and against them have to be accepted by faith alone until then. However this does not make such statements meaningless (as exampled in Hick’s ‘Journey to the celestial city’ analogy). As it does not rule out their eschatological verification, which literally means verification at the end of time. Hick’s argument has strength in its attempt at providing religions with the means of acquiring empirical evidence. However its argument is, itself, an unverifiable proposition with no empirical evidence as to prove that this will happen after death. Being based on faith alone.

C.S. Evans also developed an argument to counter statements that religious experiences are meaningless with Historical verification. He argued that religious assertions are just as verifiable historically as existing propositions which have been verified with uncertainty yet are universally accepted, using the example of Christopher Columbus sailing to America in 1492. Emphasizing that, though religious statements are not verifiable in practise e.g. Jesus turned water to wine and walked on water, we still know what would count as empirical evidence to support or disregard such events. Therefore such religious statements are, as outlined by the Verification principle, synthetically verifiable. And since Christian faith is based on past and future doctrines, this raises the possibility of at least indirect historical verification. C.S. Evans furthered his argument with the theory of Experiential verification in an attempt to use religious experience as a means of defending Christian beliefs against the Verification principle as they provide sense experience which counts towards verification of religious assertions. And therefore not as meaningless as outlined by the Verification principle.

So far several arguments have done well in countering the Verification principle and proposition that religious language is meaningless. However in support of religious language as meaningless, Anthony Flew applied to it the Falsification principle. This principle accepts a statement as verifiable if it is known what empirical evidence could support it or prove it as false I.e. do we know how to verify the statement? Flew argued that religious language was meaningless because there is nothing that can count against religious statements. Unable to be proven true or false because religious believers do not accept any evidence to falsify their beliefs (as explained in his parable of the ‘Invisible gardener’). With the Verification principle it is the absence of empirical evidence which is supposed to render religious propositions as meaningless. With Flew’s use of the Falsification principle it is the amount of empirical evidence against religious statements that renders them meaningless. As if religious people’s views on religion are frozen and unmoveable, as they filter out any and all evidence which counts against them, questioning the significance of the evidence. It also differs from the Verification principle as it is based on the basic insight that to assert something is to deny something else, and not on language. Flew is arguing that proof of religious assertions must be based on what the believer is in a position to know, not just believe. With this argument, Flew made an example of the religious statement that “God loves us as a father loves his children”. As evidence against this argument builds and builds, and yet is still accepted by religious believers for no more than the sake of itself, it becomes meaningless, to the point where it would be no different to say “God does not love us as a father loves his children” or even “God does not exist”. Because nothing remains of the original assertion that proves otherwise.

Although a strong argument as it addresses the limits of faith in verifying religious assertions and how meaningful they are in respects to language, it fails to account for statements that cannot be falsified, and yet we can understand the meaning behind such statements. An argument which was supported by Richard Swinburne who used the analogy of toys in the toy cupboard. Which sprouts from the argument against the Verification and Falsification principle that religious statements are non-cognitive containing no facts and can therefore not be proven true or false, but are not meaningless (as put forth by R.M. Hare). Swinburne’s analogy explained that, though we maybe unable to falsify whether or not toys move of their own accord when humans are absent, we still understand the concept of toys moving. Another supporter of religious language as meaningful was Basil Mitchell who considered Flew as wrong in supposing that believers never allow anything to account against their beliefs, arguing that Flew failed to understand that believers have a duty to trust in God through faith, and so cannot allow any evidence to undermine this faith. For this is the very point of the religion they follow. Therefore believers have little choice but to look for examples of evil in the world that do not entirely rule out the proposition that God still loves us. R.M Hare continued his earlier argument that religious language was still meaningful even though it could not produce factual claims. It’s meaningfulness lies in its influence to the way in which people view the world, and not in its ability to impart knowledge. Hare went on to describe religious beliefs as ‘bliks’ or unfalsifiable convictions, which is our view of the world and the subsequent statements we make about it. Religious beliefs are bliks because of the impact they have on the way people look at the world and their lives. Hare included the example of ‘the lunatic and the dons’ in which a certain lunatic is convinced all dons want to murder him. But we cannot suggest that the lunatic lacks an unfalsifiable conviction just because he is insane. Because any person who disagrees may be apart of the entire plot, we cannot know. Therefore Hare suggests that he has an insane blik, but others can have sane bliks.

A weakness in hare’s argument is exploited at this stage by Flew, because as soon as Hare wishes to differentiate between sane and insane bliks, he invokes principles of verification and falsification by which to make this judgement. So what remains of Hare’s original assertion that bliks cannot be falsified? The answer is nothing, because the blik is no longer a meaningful unfalsifiable conviction when we suggest that some bliks are superior to others. Therefore Hare’s blik theory fails to account for religious language as meaningful through the contradictions of its own argument.

The proposition that religious language is meaningless does not get off that easy though, as seen in Basil Mitchell’s argument against it which includes his parable of the freedom fighter where a resistance fighter must trust a stranger to be fighting on his side through faith alone. Raising the question of when faith becomes unreasonable to be maintained any longer. The argument defends the meaningfulness of religious language from philosophers such as Flew, though it does not argue that the empirical evidence we perceive can count against our faithfulness. But whether the evidence should be allowed to decisively count against the favourable evidence, buttressed as it is by one’s faith in the stranger. Resulting in the argument that we understand the idea of a religious statement such as “God loves us” as meaningful, and that the falsification principle cannot work.

Conclusively arguments for the original assertion that religious language is meaningless, such as the Verification principle, clearly demonstrate the fact that such statements cannot be verified due to a non-existence of empirical evidence, and therefore any assertions based on them are meaningless. Though such arguments are unclear when considering the potential verifiability of religious assertions, John Hick’s Eschatological verification introduced a way in which we can verify religious assertions, such as whether or not God exists, after death. My conclusion has developed from the strong argument which was put forth by Flew in the falsification principle, as it tackles the question of when exactly do religious assertions become meaningless. I agree with his view that when, despite the masses of opposing evidence, religious assertions are still upheld for no reason other than the sake of themselves, they can become meaningless. Although I agree Flew fails to account for the importance of faith in the religious society, as argued by Basil Mitchell, because religious language must have a non-cognitive approach which cannot be verified or falsified, which is not a weakness to be exploited as proof that it is meaningless, but as an important necessity in promoting faith as the basis of its teachings. Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that the clarity of such arguments against the meaningfulness of religious language becomes difficult to fully accept due to the very nature of religions and the assertion they make, as they are purposefully unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Therefore am not convinced that this unverifiability alone entirely renders religious language as meaningless.

... God I need a drink.

[justinksw]

Harrisburg judge (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/) rules on 'Intelligent Design'

I personally am happy to see this judgement!

[aikiMac]

Science by nature assumes nothing without evidence. If you assume a supernatural deity without some strong reason for doing so, you aren't doing science.
Apriori assumption, thank you.

I was hoping someone would point out what to me is obvious, because sometimes I don't want to do the talking, but -- you can't do science without philosophy. If ID is philosophy, fine, it's a philosophy, *BUT SO WHAT*. You can't do science without a philosophy. Aegis amigo, you just stated to the whole MAP community that you do science *WITH* a philosophy. That raises the question, which philosophy should we be using anyway? Should we use ID or should you use atheistic materialism as the necessary foundational philosophy for our science? Or, is there a third possibility that someone wants to suggest?

And why is one necessarily better than another? Who is the judge who can say, "My choice of apriori assumptions are better than your choice of apriori assumptions." Huh? Did someone die and make you king, and I wasn't told?

I'll point out something else that to me is obvious: The agnostic/atheistic crowd has history against it. Modern science was developed by people who fit the ID mold (Newton, Boyle, etc.) and that tradition goes back to the Greeks. Really, ID is essentially Stoic at its base. So again, if the ID philosophy was good enough for the guy who invented the calculus and the physics that we use every day, why is it not good enough for the rest of our science studies, huh? Or do you all just have an apriori bias against that which Newton believed? (You know that he wrote more about theology than he wrote about science and mathematics, right?)

Go on, admit it: you have a bias formed beforehand. You like your philosophy better, and that's that.

[Aegis]

Apriori assumption, thank you.

I was hoping someone would point out what to me is obvious, because sometimes I don't want to do the talking, but -- you can't do science without philosophy. If ID is philosophy, fine, it's a philosophy, *BUT SO WHAT*. You can't do science without a philosophy. Aegis amigo, you just stated to the whole MAP community that you do science *WITH* a philosophy. That raises the question, which philosophy should we be using anyway? Should we use ID or should you use atheistic materialism as the necessary foundational philosophy for our science? Or, is there a third possibility that someone wants to suggest?

And why is one necessarily better than another? Who is the judge who can say, "My choice of apriori assumptions are better than your choice of apriori assumptions." Huh? Did someone die and make you king, and I wasn't told?

I'll point out something else that to me is obvious: The agnostic/atheistic crowd has history against it. Modern science was developed by people who fit the ID mold (Newton, Boyle, etc.) and that tradition goes back to the Greeks. Really, ID is essentially Stoic at its base. So again, if the ID philosophy was good enough for the guy who invented the calculus and the physics that we use every day, why is it not good enough for the rest of our science studies, huh? Or do you all just have an apriori bias against that which Newton believed? (You know that he wrote more about theology than he wrote about science and mathematics, right?)

Go on, admit it: you have a bias formed beforehand. You like your philosophy better, and that's that.

Let me say it again: science begins with no assumptions other than that anything that happens leaves evidence. If you want to go into discussion about supernatural events or entities which leave no evidence in the natural world, then you are no longer doing science.

If you want science to include a deity or an "Intelligent Designer" (or other things such as UFOs for that matter) then you need to have evidence to support it. Science doesn't assume there is no god, rather it doesn't assume there is one. Science is actually agnostic over the whole god issue, as there is no evidence to support it.

The problem with a god assumption is that it undermines the entire scientific method, which has been the primary method of discovery and investigation since it was first stated (and even before that a similar method was used with good results). The scientific method involves formulating a falsifiable hypothesis to explain a phenomenon or a series of phenomena, testing the hypothesis against the data, making predictions about new data, updating the hypothesis if required, and eventually accepting the hypothesis as a theory, or as part of a theory. Anything involving the supernatural will fail at one of these steps, and if it cannot match up to the scientific method, it is not science.

If you want to come up with another method to investigate phenomena, then feel free, but as soon as you build in the possibility that the evidence isn't reliable and that everything might be completely different to how it appears, the potential to explain in any meaningful manner disappears.

[Topher]

Apriori assumption, thank you.

I was hoping someone would point out what to me is obvious, because sometimes I don't want to do the talking, but -- you can't do science without philosophy. If ID is philosophy, fine, it's a philosophy, *BUT SO WHAT*. You can't do science without a philosophy. Aegis amigo, you just stated to the whole MAP community that you do science *WITH* a philosophy. That raises the question, which philosophy should we be using anyway? Should we use ID or should you use atheistic materialism as the necessary foundational philosophy for our science? Or, is there a third possibility that someone wants to suggest?

And why is one necessarily better than another? Who is the judge who can say, "My choice of apriori assumptions are better than your choice of apriori assumptions." Huh? Did someone die and make you king, and I wasn't told?

I'll point out something else that to me is obvious: The agnostic/atheistic crowd has history against it. Modern science was developed by people who fit the ID mold (Newton, Boyle, etc.) and that tradition goes back to the Greeks. Really, ID is essentially Stoic at its base. So again, if the ID philosophy was good enough for the guy who invented the calculus and the physics that we use every day, why is it not good enough for the rest of our science studies, huh? Or do you all just have an apriori bias against that which Newton believed? (You know that he wrote more about theology than he wrote about science and mathematics, right?)

Go on, admit it: you have a bias formed beforehand. You like your philosophy better, and that's that.
I'm sorry where did Aegis mention philosopy in his post :rolleyes:

[Aegis]

Harrisburg judge (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/) rules on 'Intelligent Design'

I personally am happy to see this judgement!
Likewise!

Not really a surprise that the religion vs science lawsuit ended up with essentially a ruling saying "science works out what is science without politics getting involved", but still an excellent result. Not even a close call for ID, an outright rejection of all possible cause for getting it taught.

[Moosey]

And before anyone brings it out, and I know it will be hit eventually, because for some reason the eye is always the organ that creationists love to trot out to "disprove" evolution, I highly suggest reading In the Blink of an Eye. It is an excellent and very readable natural history of the eye.

Hi Wry, I'm sorry if anyone's covered this already, there are a heck of a lot of posts and I'm not about to read them all (maybe if it has been covered you could direct me to where?). I picked up on your post because it's always been the thing that's most fascinated me about evolution - the whole gap regarding the evolution of complex systems. e.g. the eye. I'm not a creationist (I'm a scientist by profession, but not in the field of evolutionary biology) but as always it's the apparent gaps in a theory that are the most interesting bits. So how has this argument been resolved?

As I understand it the argument goes: According to natural selection, random mutation and variations happen in any population. If they prove adaptive, the organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on the gene governing this characteristic to it's offspring etc etc. However, with organs like the eye, there is a complex system involving transparent lenses, light sensitive rods and cones, nerve pathways through the skull into the optic tract, waystations in the thalamus, long tracts of white matter through to the occipital cortex etc etc etc - however, none of this is adaptive (ie. likely to aid survival/reproduction) if it happens in isolation. Having a perfectly formed eyeball is not an aid to survival without an optic nerve (for example), so a random mutation in which a single (or even several) elements is formed does not increase the likelihood of survival without the whole system being in place. Given that the odds of a random mutation creating every single element needed for even a light sensitive retina is astronomical, how has the visual system evolved.

The only argument I can think of off the top of my head to explain this is the same one I'd use for creation itself. It is completely irrelevant to consider how astronomical the odds of our evolving are - we are only able to think about it because those conditions have been met, so from our perspective the odds of our evolution are 100%. In any of the other billions of iterations, we would not have evolved in our current form so would not be capable of analysing these odds. With retrospect, the possibility of any event that has happened having had hapened is 100%.

However, I can't help but think with regards to things like vision, that this is something of a cop out. So cany any clued up people fill me in?

[Aegis]

Hi Wry, I'm sorry if anyone's covered this already, there are a heck of a lot of posts and I'm not about to read them all (maybe if it has been covered you could direct me to where?). I picked up on your post because it's always been the thing that's most fascinated me about evolution - the whole gap regarding the evolution of complex systems. e.g. the eye. I'm not a creationist (I'm a scientist by profession, but not in the field of evolutionary biology) but as always it's the apparent gaps in a theory that are the most interesting bits. So how has this argument been resolved?

As I understand it the argument goes: According to natural selection, random mutation and variations happen in any population. If they prove adaptive, the organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on the gene governing this characteristic to it's offspring etc etc. However, with organs like the eye, there is a complex system involving transparent lenses, light sensitive rods and cones, nerve pathways through the skull into the optic tract, waystations in the thalamus, long tracts of white matter through to the occipital cortex etc etc etc - however, none of this is adaptive (ie. likely to aid survival/reproduction) if it happens in isolation. Having a perfectly formed eyeball is not an aid to survival without an optic nerve (for example), so a random mutation in which a single (or even several) elements is formed does not increase the likelihood of survival without the whole system being in place. Given that the odds of a random mutation creating every single element needed for even a light sensitive retina is astronomical, how has the visual system evolved.

The only argument I can think of off the top of my head to explain this is the same one I'd use for creation itself. It is completely irrelevant to consider how astronomical the odds of our evolving are - we are only able to think about it because those conditions have been met, so from our perspective the odds of our evolution are 100%. In any of the other billions of iterations, we would not have evolved in our current form so would not be capable of analysing these odds. With retrospect, the possibility of any event that has happened having had hapened is 100%.

However, I can't help but think with regards to things like vision, that this is something of a cop out. So cany any clued up people fill me in?
In the case of the eye, the most important thing to remember is that even an imperfect eye is still better than nothing. So a patch of light-sensitive receptors on the skin is better than nothing, and a patch of light sensitive receptors with a transparent coating is better than that, if only for the protection. The ability to detect movement is better than just sensing light, seeing specific shapes, better yet. Detecting colour is a bonus. A focusing lens to allow better vision could feasibly develop from the coating, which would then require another coating to form to protect the lens. An iris would be useful to allow varying levels of light to enter the eye...

None of this is anything like what the actual proposed mechanism is like, but the basic idea is the same: something simple exists to begin with and through a series of minor improvements to the previous system, a more advanced viewing organ can evolve.

The mistake in all of this is to assume that every part of an organ had to evolve concurrently. In actual fact the subsystems evolve independently and eventually form what appear to be irreducibly complex systems.

Another example, this time in non-living systems:

"A city requires roads and accommodation. Without the accommodation, roads won't be built, but without roads, no accommodation will be built." By using the same criteria on cities as on eyes, one can "prove" that cities are irreducibly comples and must have been built in a single sitting to allow the system to work. In actual fact, the chances are that the city is the end result of hundreds of years of development from simpler set-ups, like farms, forts, villages, etc, into seemingly irreducible systems.

Note that this doesn't apply to "new" cities, which often ARE designed to be cities immediately.

[Moosey]

But surely even at a ridiculously reduced level there's an absurd level of complexity. For a patch of light sensitive cells to be an evolutionary advantage you need an organism which mutates to develop cells that contain a chemical which changes form when exposed to light. These cells need to develop on the surface of the organism and a pathway by which the change in the chemical form can influence the rest of the system needs to develop. This change in chemical form needs to influence the rest of the system in a way that gives it an advantage, so rather than exposure to light simply triggering a change in colour (for example - which wouldn't be much use in a set of organisms with no eyes!) it needs to trigger a behaviour or adaptation that provides an advantage in growth, feeding, defence or reproduction.

The cities example is actually an example of intelligent design, as you can't escape the fact that cities (from towns from villages...) were made with specific purposes in mind. In order for the cities example to work, you need to take into account the evolution of human intelligence, which sort of brings us back to the original question.

[wrydolphin]

A.) You are jumping too far ahead of yourself. Remember, generally speaking, evolution runs from the simple to the complex. So think in terms of simple. The simplest being the eyespot. It's an area of photosyntisive chemicals in a single celled organism. Just being able to tell light from dark is a huge evolutionary step forward. Then you have colonies of organisms, eventually, a few cells might begin to specialize in telling light from dark. Now these cells aren't tissues, just a colony. Through in some more geological time (and remember at this level of organization, generational times are still very short) and you have a simple organism that has a clump of light sensitive cells that communicate though chemical impulses, still not an "eye" but further along the track. You get the meaning? Its not as though an organism woke up one fine day and said to itself, right, time to develope the eye. Through minute changes in a pre-existing set of genes and cells, organs develope. Look at cephilization. Hox genes are resposible for the condition of having a head. For evolution to be correct, that would mean the more primative organisms would have to have primatibe versions of the hox gene. And guess what, they do. It defines the "border" cells of simple colony organisms.
B.) I don't remember what B was, but man that Sotch with dinner was very good. Right, back to painting those fishies. :D

[Moosey]

A.) You are jumping too far ahead of yourself. Remember, generally speaking, evolution runs from the simple to the complex. So think in terms of simple. The simplest being the eyespot. It's an area of photosyntisive chemicals in a single celled organism. Just being able to tell light from dark is a huge evolutionary step forward. Then you have colonies of organisms, eventually, a few cells might begin to specialize in telling light from dark. Now these cells aren't tissues, just a colony. Through in some more geological time (and remember at this level of organization, generational times are still very short) and you have a simple organism that has a clump of light sensitive cells that communicate though chemical impulses, still not an "eye" but further along the track. You get the meaning? Its not as though an organism woke up one fine day and said to itself, right, time to develope the eye. Through minute changes in a pre-existing set of genes and cells, organs develope. Look at cephilization. Hox genes are resposible for the condition of having a head. For evolution to be correct, that would mean the more primative organisms would have to have primatibe versions of the hox gene. And guess what, they do. It defines the "border" cells of simple colony organisms.
B.) I don't remember what B was, but man that Sotch with dinner was very good. Right, back to painting those fishies. :D
Thanks Dolph! That actually helps a lot. I was thinking in terms of too complex a starting point.

Thanks Aegis too, I do understand what you meant I was just being a bit dense with regards to how simple the organisms would be at the point when light sensitivity would have developed and how these systems would have evolved concurrently rather than in an otherwise "complete" organism.

[wrydolphin]

Glad to help. And I think I need points for typing that after the Scotch. :p

[Gary]

There's no such thing as a complete organism. That's the whole reason we evolve, there is no end to it. What we call an eye is just the predecessor for what succeeds it.

[aikiMac]

Let me say it again: science begins with no assumptions other than that anything that happens leaves evidence. If you want to go into discussion about supernatural events or entities which leave no evidence in the natural world, then you are no longer doing science.
That incorrect as a matter of history. When did science start, eh? Was Isaac Newton not doing science, eh? Was Archimedes not doing science, eh? When did it start?


If you want science to include a deity or an "Intelligent Designer" (or other things such as UFOs for that matter) then you need to have evidence to support it. Science doesn't assume there is no god, rather it doesn't assume there is one. Science is actually agnostic over the whole god issue, as there is no evidence to support it.
Not historically accurate. Same mistake as above: you have ignored history.


The problem with a god assumption is that it undermines the entire scientific method, which has been the primary method of discovery and investigation since it was first stated (and even before that a similar method was used with good results). The scientific method involves formulating a falsifiable hypothesis to explain a phenomenon or a series of phenomena, testing the hypothesis against the data, making predictions about new data, updating the hypothesis if required, and eventually accepting the hypothesis as a theory, or as part of a theory. Anything involving the supernatural will fail at one of these steps, and if it cannot match up to the scientific method, it is not science.
The scientific method was invented by monotheists, thank you, and you know it.

From about 300 BC to about 1850 AD, science was built upon a philosophy that recognized an "intelligent designer" for the universe, whose name we today would recognize as "God." Around 1850 that philosophy was substituted with the philosophy of atheistic materialism. For your statements to hold true, we have to say that before 1850, there was no science. I am not willing to say that, because I am not willing to say something false.


If you want to come up with another method to investigate phenomena, then feel free, but as soon as you build in the possibility that the evidence isn't reliable and that everything might be completely different to how it appears, the potential to explain in any meaningful manner disappears.
A totally bogus strawman, thank you.

[wrydolphin]

aikie:
Guess what? Science evolved. ;)
It is true that modern science traces its origens back to monotheists (wait, aren't there still monotheists who are ligitmate scientists and don't feel the need to point to God everytime something get's hard to understand, oh, that's right, yes. :) ) of more then one religion, I might add. However, just as methodology has changed, so to has science. It has done so to acomadate more data and a greater understanding of the nature of matter. Pulling out the history of science and using it to validate ID or creation is no more applicable then pulling out the mores of the 5th century Roman Catholic Church and using them to define modern Protestantism, or indeed even the modern Roman Catholic Church.

[aikiMac]

(wait, aren't there still monotheists who are ligitmate scientists and don't feel the need to point to God everytime something get's hard to understand, oh, that's right, yes. :) )
Another bogus strawman and an intentional misrepresentation of both what the other side says, and of the issue being discussed. :rolleyes: Your humor proves my point that your science is based upon a philosophy as well; therefore, the issue is not really "shall we teach science?" but rather, "whose philosophy shall we teach?"

[holyheadjch]

To be honest I see this ID philosophy as a really good excuse for not answering questions, to believe in it shows a blatant inability to consider the evidence and a willingness to reject scientific progress on the say so of a book. These people probably read George Orwells Animal Farm and immediately went out to protest against the genetic engineering of talking pigs.

Some things are easy to write off as BS and this is one of those things.

[Gary]

I think churches should start teaching the Pagan winter solstice, commercialist holiday promotion and Santa theories of christmas.

[Moosey]

There's no such thing as a complete organism. That's the whole reason we evolve, there is no end to it. What we call an eye is just the predecessor for what succeeds it.
Yeah fairy nuff, I shoulda said "a more evolutionarily complex organism".

[wrydolphin]

Another bogus strawman and an intentional misrepresentation of both what the other side says, and of the issue being discussed. :rolleyes: Your humor proves my point that your science is based upon a philosophy as well; therefore, the issue is not really "shall we teach science?" but rather, "whose philosophy shall we teach?"
This from the man who owns the biggest strawman of them all. ;)

Your philosophy arguement is a huge strawman. Big. Ginormous even.

Yes, there is a natural philosophy to science: it basically being, what can be deduced from the evidence at hand? Simple and elegant, no? I do not teach my personal philosphies, I teach scientific philosophy, or rather as it has come to be known, the scientific process. When you review the scientific process, you will find that in no way shape or form does it support an unnatural or supernatural explanation of any natural phenomenon. All things have levels of explanation, and you go through all of them without ever once having to say "God did it".

No one says that religion can't be taught, in its place. We are simply stating that it cannot be taught as science.

[justinksw]

I know it has already been said in this thread, and many others... but why is it some people just can't seem to accept that if something is too complex for us to understand based on our current scientific evidence that it doesn't have to be some 'all powerful being' (aka god) did it? Is it so hard to see that we are making dramatic advances every day and things that used to be considered god's work are nothing more than natural phenomenon?

Just because something is beyond our comprehension doesn't mean it's god's work. I don't know how our universe was 'born', but I can tell you I don't believe it was created by some all powerful being. There is NO evidence to support this. I am open-minded enough to tell you that if there was some evidence that came to light that proved such an event, I would be on board with it.

I don't fully believe something until I see proof. I will have theories, or even support theories if some evidence points in the direction of it, but I'm always open to new ideas (that make some kind of logical sense).

[Matt_Bernius]

As a brief sideline... I'm sure many inside and outside of the US have heard about the Dover decision. I thought I'd quickly summarize the basics, provide the decision (for those who would like to read it) and link to a good commentary:

To be precise, the former Dover School Board wasn't trying to teach "Intelligent Design." It attempted to give a one minute statement to suggest that "Intelligent Design" was an alternative scientific theory to Evolution. It was this presentation of "Intelligent Design" as science that is the crux of the issue. The decision demonstrates that "Intelligent Design" is an extension of Creationism and, that in order to work, requires a supernatural component. Even the top proponents of Intelligent Design had to admit that:
a. the introduction of the supernatural would require a change to the practice/conception of modern science.
b. there is no credible alternative explanation for the supernatural component than God.

It is because of these two things (and a wealth of other evidence examined within the carefully written opinion) that the judge ruled that the teaching of Intelligent Design (or even its introduction) equates the introduction of religious teaching/endorsement into the public classroom. As current Supreme Court rulings do not allow for this, Intelligent Design can't be presented as an alternative theory.

Here is an exceptionally good legal overview of the implications and rational:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5063320

Also, it should be noted that this judge isn't a typically "Judicial Activist." He's a Bush appointee who, in fact, believes in Intelligent Design.

Here's the opinion: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

- Matt

[aikiMac]

Your philosophy arguement is a huge strawman. Big. Ginormous even.
No it's not. Several people in this thread who are antagonistic to ID have labeled ID as a philosophy. For the sake of discussion I have not questioned that label. I'm pointing out the truth: their own version of "science" is also based upon a philosophy. It appears to be naturalistic materialism, though nobody has yet specified his or her philosophical foundation.


Yes, there is a natural philosophy to science: it basically being, what can be deduced from the evidence at hand?
That's part of it, yes, but you left out the core part.
The core part of ID was used at least from 300 BC (Greek Stoics) until 1850 AD. The core part of ID is that an intelligent supernatural force created the universe. The Greeks called it "logos." The Apostle John adopted this idea into Christianity and identified "logos" with Jesus; see John chapter 1. It was carried from there. The name for this force is not important. Call it logos, call it God, call it whatever you want. The assumption that the force exists is the core part of ID.

The core part of naturalistic materialism is that there is no intellligent supernatural force (be it logos or Jesus or whatever) that created the universe. This cannot be proven by any scientific method. The existence of logos cannot be proven by any scientific method either. They are both apriori assumptions, but, for science to occur, one must make some unprovable assumptions. You need a philosophy to do science -- period. You need one.


I do not teach my personal philosphies, I teach scientific philosophy, or rather as it has come to be known, the scientific process.
The scientific process is not the same as scientific philosophy. By confusing terms you hide the issue. That's not helpful. Isaac Newton believed that God created the universe, and he followed your "scientific process" quite well. So did Gregor Mendel. So did other great scientists mentioned in your textbooks.

[Strafio]

Back in the day of Descartes, wasn't science and philosophy regarded as the same thing? If I'm right, science is a branch of natural philosophy based purely on experiemental evidence. Scientific theories will sometimes use a little philosophy to fill it's gaps and philosophies will sometimes use a bit of science to check that their theories are consistant with the natural world.

So we get the difference between ID and Evolution.
Evolution started as and built up from natural observations of the world and built a theory around that. ID started as an idea that uses scientific facts to back it up.
That's how Evolution is science and ID is philosophy.

That's not putting ID down. It still might be true, just not in a scientifical context.
Don't the ID attacks on evolution attack scientific method in general? (the fact that evolution is "theory" rather than "fact" is because our scientific methods can only be so accurate?) That's why it's out of place in a science lesson.

Was that a satisfactory explanation? :)

[Matt_Bernius]

I'm going to give a slightly different take on this (and note my personal view is that science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Culturally speaking, the definition/expectation of any field, such as science, is in a state of flux. What counts as Science today is different than what counted as is 50, 100, 500, etc. years ago. And what counted as science in one region of the world differed from science in another region of the world. The ideas of objectivism and unified science are, as a whole, relatively new concepts. But, when judging if something is or isn't science, we need to go with the current, culturally accepted aspects/notions of what qualifies and does not qualify as science.

It's a really good idea to read the entire decision. The language isn't particularly complex and it does a good job of providing an overview. Regardless of which side of the discussion/debate you are on, this document will be of utmost importance. Here, in particular, are to very cogent parts to the Dover case:

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))." [p 68]

"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)).

Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))."
[pp 87-8]

- Matt

[aikiMac]

It's a really good idea to read the entire decision.
I second that.
I printed myself a copy. It's 50 pages long. I'll have to read it later.

[Aegis]

That incorrect as a matter of history. When did science start, eh? Was Isaac Newton not doing science, eh? Was Archimedes not doing science, eh? When did it start?

When did it start being called science? Investigation has been done for many many years, but science (as in the formulation of the scientific method as a means to investigate phenomena) is actually fairly recent. Newton was indeed doing science: he started with an observation (things fall) and came up with the Law of Gravity through repeated testing, along with other Laws of Motion, all found through observation of how matter acts when forces are/are not applied.

ID/religion starts with the conclusion and finds evidence to support it. This is NOT science, no matter how much certain creationists would have us believe otherwise.

You failed to address my point though: that science does not BEGIN with an assumption and then use that assumption to support the assumption. Newton didn't start by saying "F=ma, now let me find evidence to show that F=ma". Instead he did repeated testing and deduced that F=ma (a useful summary of all 3 of his laws of motion actually... quite succinct)



Not historically accurate. Same mistake as above: you have ignored history.

Then provide evidence to the contrary. I've studied science in depth, and not once have I seen any science start with the assumption of a designer/deity, etc and still make it through the peer-review process. Science is agnostic, it looks at the evidence, not at the wishful thinking of theists.


The scientific method was invented by monotheists, thank you, and you know it.

So what? Newton was a creationist, it doesn't mean that he used the scientific method to back up his beliefs, or that because he was right about motion that he was also right about religion. I really don't understand what point you were trying to make with this, but I suspect that you're actually makign an argument for the wrong side without realising it.

From about 300 BC to about 1850 AD, science was built upon a philosophy that recognized an "intelligent designer" for the universe, whose name we today would recognize as "God." Around 1850 that philosophy was substituted with the philosophy of atheistic materialism. For your statements to hold true, we have to say that before 1850, there was no science. I am not willing to say that, because I am not willing to say something false.

NO currently accepted theory begins with God. I challenge you to find anything left in science where god was assumed to be true for the evidence to be interpreted differently.

A totally bogus strawman, thank you.

You're the one arguing for science to include the possibility that the evidence doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean (e.g. that we appear to have descended from a common ancestor with chimps, but in actual fact were created separately), in which case you must also accept that the natural evidence for ANYTHING else may also be equally invalid, in which case your entire method of investigation is rendered useless. If you think this is a straw man, then do explain why.

[aikiMac]

Newton was indeed doing science: he started with an observation (things fall) and came up with the Law of Gravity through repeated testing, along with other Laws of Motion, all found through observation of how matter acts when forces are/are not applied.

ID/religion starts with the conclusion and finds evidence to support it. This is NOT science, no matter how much certain creationists would have us believe otherwise.
But Newton believed in ID. Odd, then, that he could do science. ;) Your statement about ID is false. At best, it is every bit as true as the statement that agnosticism as a foundation for science begins with the conclusion and finds evidence to support it.


You failed to address my point though: that science does not BEGIN with an assumption and then use that assumption to support the assumption. Newton didn't start by saying "F=ma, now let me find evidence to show that F=ma".
All science begins with an assumption. Newton's assumption was that God exists, not that F=ma, and you know that.


I've studied science in depth, and not once have I seen any science start with the assumption of a designer/deity, etc and still make it through the peer-review process. Science is agnostic, it looks at the evidence, not at the wishful thinking of theists.
That was my point -- scientists today generally begin with the assumption that there is no God, or, that if there is a God he does not doing anything supernatural. It's an assumption. And it's a naturalistic materialism. Yesteryear the guy who founded the field of genetics assumed, in contrast, that there was a God who acted supernaturally now and then. Very different philosophical foundation, yet, somehow he still did good science.

[CKava]

aikiMAc you keep bringing up the fact that people in the past who believed in God were able to do good science thus ID must be good science. This isn't a logical conclusion... say for example someone believed in karma and became a scientist and developed a famous physics law would that then prove that karma is correct? No it doesn't, it proves that you can do good science while having a conviction in karma.

The second argument you seem to be presenting: that belief in a God has been around for a long time and many scientists up till modern times held this view therefore science must be firmly based on the assumption that there is a God again seems to me to be jumping to a false conclusion. To highlight why it might be good to look at another theory that most scientists accepted until very recently (even more recently than 1850) eugenics and its associated assumption that there is a hierarchy amongst races. Would you contend that since this theory was accepted by most scientists throughout history it is essential for modern science and it must also be taught as an alternative to the modern PC theory that all races are equal?

[Aegis]

But Newton believed in ID. Odd, then, that he could do science. ;) Your statement about ID is false. At best, it is every bit as true as the statement that agnosticism as a foundation for science begins with the conclusion and finds evidence to support it.

You're arguing against a point I never made (aka a strawman)

I never said that someone couldn't believe ID and do science, I said that ID wasn't science. You can believe in aliens (or not) and do science, why should religious beliefs be any different?

The difference is that Newton didn't get to a point in his scientific investigation and say "I've done all I can, god did the stuff I can't explain" which is essentially what ID does. This is simply not science, as the god/designer argument is simply an unfalsifiable argument from incredulity or ignorance, which automatically disquallifies it from being science.

However, if you would like to offer a test by which ID or creationism could be objectively tested, then feel free and it/they will become science. Until then, tough break.

Plus I doubt Newton ever went on the record as saying that his belief in god was even remotely scientific.

All science begins with an assumption. Newton's assumption was that God exists, not that F=ma, and you know that.

No.

Science begins with nothing, then observes a phenomenon and attempts to explain it. God existing or not existing has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of motion, nor is god mentioned anywhere in the laws or the data gathered to formulate the laws. As such, god is NOT an assumption required for the laws to be true. Hence an atheist scientist and a theist scientist can both arrive at the exact same mathematical description of the laws of motion by a series of repeatable tests. Can the same be said of ID/creationism? No.

That was my point -- scientists today generally begin with the assumption that there is no God, or, that if there is a God he does not doing anything supernatural. It's an assumption. And it's a naturalistic materialism. Yesteryear the guy who founded the field of genetics assumed, in contrast, that there was a God who acted supernaturally now and then. Very different philosophical foundation, yet, somehow he still did good science.

If you assume that the data is incorrect, you make investigation impossible. That is a simple fact.

Hence science assumes that the data points to the facts. Like I said elsewhere, if you can come up to a better method of investigation, then go right ahead, but be aware that if you allow evidence to be ignored because it is inconvenient, then you have to apply the same rules to ALL branches of this "new science", not just evolution.

[aikiMac]

aikiMAc you keep bringing up the fact that people in the past who believed in God were able to do good science thus ID must be good science.
No -- I never said that ID is a science. I have always accepted the assertion by others that ID is a philosophy. My point has always been that

(1) good scientists of yesteryear whom we today respect, believed the philosophy of ID and based their scientific work upon the philosophy of ID, a point that seems to be undisputed,

(2) and that the core assumption within the philosophy of ID supported science for at least 2100 years, a point that seems to be undisputed,

(3) and that today many scientists believe and base their work upon an alternative philosophy, a point that seems to be undisputed,

(4) and that all science is predicated upon a philosophical foundation. All of it. This point is disputed, but I am correct.

Aegis has an underlying philosophy different from that of Isaac Newton, but I have never and would never suggest that Aegis does bad work because his underlying philosophy is different than Newton's.

[Aegis]

No -- I never said that ID is a science. I have always accepted the assertion by others that ID is a philosophy.

Well, this much is good at least!

My point has always been that

(1) good scientists of yesteryear whom we today respect, believed the philosophy of ID and based their scientific work upon the philosophy of ID, a point that seems to be undisputed,

I dispute this. No-one based their science on ID. Find me a single scientific principle which starts by necessity with ID as an assumption.

(2) and that the core assumption within the philosophy of ID supported science for at least 2100 years, a point that seems to be undisputed,

I dispute this. See above for why.

(3) and that today many scientists believe and base their work upon an alternative philosophy, a point that seems to be undisputed,

I dispute this. Lack of assumptions is not a philosophy.

(4) and that all science is predicated upon a philosophical foundation. All of it. This point is disputed, but I am correct.

Stating "I am correct" does not make you right. The only "philosophy" of science is that evidence points to facts and that nothing without evidence can be science. So in a sense you are correct that science has a philosophy, but it is not an atheistic one as you seem to imply.

To reiterate again: science doesn't care if there is a god or not as long as evidence still points to facts.

Aegis has an underlying philosophy different from that of Isaac Newton, but I have never and would never suggest that Aegis does bad work because his underlying philosophy is different than Newton's.

Nor do I. Creationists do and have done good science in the past, as have IDists. However, there has been no work done in the fields of creation or ID that has withstood the peer-review process, so neither of these are scientific. This is not a bias of any kind, it is just the nature of science to exclude anything without evidence.

[aikiMac]

I dispute this. No-one based their science on ID. Find me a single scientific principle which starts by necessity with ID as an assumption.
:confused: Define "scientific principle."
To copy from a post below, the "scientific process" is not the same as "scientific philosophy." Perhaps one or both of us is mixing terms. That would explain why we're not getting each other.


Lack of assumptions is not a philosophy.
You're doing a bit more than "lacking assumptions." The act of demanding proof of God is itself the act of ignoring the very definition of God. For all practical purposes that equates to an assumption that there is no God. Ergo, just like everybody else on the planet, you have made assumptions even before you begin.


Stating "I am correct" does not make you right. The only "philosophy" of science is that evidence points to facts and that nothing without evidence can be science. So in a sense you are correct that science has a philosophy, but it is not an atheistic one as you seem to imply.
See above.
Additionally, your statement here implies that only "science" (whoever he is) can know anything. That assertion, whether you made it or not, is false. Not everything can be duplicated in experimentation. There is a limit to how far the scientific METHOD can take us. At the boundary, knowledge can be pursued only through other fields, the two relevant fields here being theology and philosophy. It works the other way too, of course; theology and philosophy have boundaries, and at those boundaries the scientific method should be used.

[Aegis]

:confused: Define "scientific principle."

Any law, theory or hypothesis would be fine.

To copy from a post below, the "scientific process" is not the same as "scientific philosophy." Perhaps one or both of us is mixing terms. That would explain why we're not getting each other.

Actually the scientific process is directly consequential of the scientific philosophy, so discussing one is essentially discussing the other.

You're doing a bit more than "lacking assumptions." The act of demanding proof of God is itself the act of ignoring the very definition of God. For all practical purposes that equates to an assumption that there is no God. Ergo, just like everybody else on the planet, you have made assumptions even before you begin.


I don't much care about anything that demands belief without evidence. To me, evidence is all I have. Without evidence, I do not accept a conjecture, and this is the same as how science operates. If you want to investigate matters, you need to use evidence. Even if you believe in god, you can still use science to evaluate the world he supposedly created, but in order to accept creationism you must also accept that he deliberately left evidence to the contrary (for example, radioisotope dating, twin nested hierarchy, ERVs, chromosone similarity) and also that entire branches of science have been built on these evidences to the contrary (evolution, cosmology, geology, etc). If this is what you want to believe, then fine, your choice. But it's still not science, and it's certainly not something we should teach in a science class, which is what the whole ID movement was really about.

See above.
Additionally, your statement here implies that only "science" (whoever he is) can know anything. That assertion, whether you made it or not, is false. Not everything can be duplicated in experimentation. There is a limit to how far the scientific METHOD can take us. At the boundary, knowledge can be pursued only through other fields, the two relevant fields here being theology and philosophy. It works the other way too, of course; theology and philosophy have boundaries, and at those boundaries the scientific method should be used.

What limit? Where is the boundary? How can any other method accurately pursue knowledge across such a boundary?

In addition, I never stated that science is the only way to know anything. What I would have stated is that it is currently the best method of investigation, shown through the results that the method has generated over the years. In addition, any other method involving an assumption of a deity/designer would rely on circular reasoning to back itself up, followed by a multitude of guesses as to where the evidence is showing actual events/facts/etc and where the evidence is actually due to a manipulation by an intangible entity.

[aikiMac]

Actually the scientific process is directly consequential of the scientific philosophy, so discussing one is essentially discussing the other.
Then how could a creationist and an atheist use the same scientific process ?! I thought you said they could!


... which is what the whole ID movement was really about.
I haven't read the court opinion yet, so I can't comment on this.

EDIT:
What limit? Where is the boundary? How can any other method accurately pursue knowledge across such a boundary?
Define "knowledge." Define "knowing." ;) That's not a joke, that's a real question posed in the field of philosophy, and it is the starting point for your scientific method. You can't even do your scientific method without first deciding what it means to know something, and deciding that you can, in fact, know something. See -- you do have to begin with some kind of philosophy. We found one boundary point. :)

[Aegis]

Then how could a creationist and an atheist use the same scientific process ?! I thought you said they could!

By separating their religion from their work. Or by interpreting their religion to match the world they see around them, rather than interpreting the facts to fit their religion.

[Strafio]

(1) good scientists of yesteryear whom we today respect, believed the philosophy of ID and based their scientific work upon the philosophy of ID, a point that seems to be undisputed,
Not really. Accompanied rather than based.
Their scientific work was based on experimentation and the like.
The fact that they believed in ID was more or less irrelevant to their discoveries.

These philosophies may have influenced the way these scientists went about making these scientific discoveries but had little to do with the discoveries themselves.

edit: Oh, and you didn't reply to my earlier post. (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=718643&postcount=227) :cry:

[justinksw]

I'm getting a bag of popcorn, this is great! Keep up the great debate!! :D

[tekkengod]

i just saw that it was ruled against. oh happy day. :D

[Topher]

From about 300 BC to about 1850 AD, science was built upon a philosophy that recognized an "intelligent designer" for the universe, whose name we today would recognize as "God." Around 1850 that philosophy was substituted with the philosophy of atheistic materialism. For your statements to hold true, we have to say that before 1850, there was no science. I am not willing to say that, because I am not willing to say something false.

That's the beauty of science.... when something better comes along (in this case evolution) it dont reject it simply because i is different to its current view, it studies it and then as evolution shows, proved to be a better idea. I believe they accepted "God" to explain the universe around them, but then as the world evolved they started to make new discoveries regarding our orign.

[tekkengod]

"sometimes we're so desprate for answers, we'll believe anything, none of this is real" - Stn Marsh

[Topher]

As a brief sideline... I'm sure many inside and outside of the US have heard about the Dover decision. I thought I'd quickly summarize the basics, provide the decision (for those who would like to read it) and link to a good commentary:

To be precise, the former Dover School Board wasn't trying to teach "Intelligent Design." It attempted to give a one minute statement to suggest that "Intelligent Design" was an alternative scientific theory to Evolution. It was this presentation of "Intelligent Design" as science that is the crux of the issue. The decision demonstrates that "Intelligent Design" is an extension of Creationism and, that in order to work, requires a supernatural component. Even the top proponents of Intelligent Design had to admit that:
a. the introduction of the supernatural would require a change to the practice/conception of modern science.
b. there is no credible alternative explanation for the supernatural component than God.

It is because of these two things (and a wealth of other evidence examined within the carefully written opinion) that the judge ruled that the teaching of Intelligent Design (or even its introduction) equates the introduction of religious teaching/endorsement into the public classroom. As current Supreme Court rulings do not allow for this, Intelligent Design can't be presented as an alternative theory.

Here is an exceptionally good legal overview of the implications and rational:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5063320

Also, it should be noted that this judge isn't a typically "Judicial Activist." He's a Bush appointee who, in fact, believes in Intelligent Design.

Here's the opinion: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

- Matt
Good post.

One question, i assume that US school have RE (Religious Education)? If so then isn't religion being taught in the public classroom?

[Gary]

RE is very different, RE should be taught as a mix of religions, and be taught as a belief system and culture. If a school starts teaching that one religion's lessons are true, that school's preaching not teaching.

Great thing about science is that nothing is ever right. Newton invented his theory of gravity, Einstein changed the theory, and then Hawking came along and changed it again. Sometimes old discarded theories are brushed off and reexamined, and quite often established theories are thrown out of the window. If any kind of benevolent deity is watching over us, I'm sure science will get there eventually, and when it does, will accept it for whatever it is.

[wrydolphin]

No it's not. Several people in this thread who are antagonistic to ID have labeled ID as a philosophy. For the sake of discussion I have not questioned that label. I'm pointing out the truth: their own version of "science" is also based upon a philosophy. It appears to be naturalistic materialism, though nobody has yet specified his or her philosophical foundation.



That's part of it, yes, but you left out the core part.
The core part of ID was used at least from 300 BC (Greek Stoics) until 1850 AD. The core part of ID is that an intelligent supernatural force created the universe. The Greeks called it "logos." The Apostle John adopted this idea into Christianity and identified "logos" with Jesus; see John chapter 1. It was carried from there. The name for this force is not important. Call it logos, call it God, call it whatever you want. The assumption that the force exists is the core part of ID.

The core part of naturalistic materialism is that there is no intellligent supernatural force (be it logos or Jesus or whatever) that created the universe. This cannot be proven by any scientific method. The existence of logos cannot be proven by any scientific method either. They are both apriori assumptions, but, for science to occur, one must make some unprovable assumptions. You need a philosophy to do science -- period. You need one.



The scientific process is not the same as scientific philosophy. By confusing terms you hide the issue. That's not helpful. Isaac Newton believed that God created the universe, and he followed your "scientific process" quite well. So did Gregor Mendel. So did other great scientists mentioned in your textbooks.
It is not philosophy because of the basic difference between the nature of truth and the nature of fact. Facts are solid, proven or unproven. Supported or unsupported. Truth is something that is believed to be true or has the ultimate meaning. You can prove or disprove truth. Now then, both can work in science, but science by its nature is wary of "truth", science is the search for facts. Truth has the tendency to be a belief that one then searches for evidence. I believe that Santa exists. Now I have to find evidence. Truth lies behind much of the psuedoscience out there, from Big Foot to the Water Ape theory. It collects a lot of data that seems ok from the outside, but which breaks down readily when carefully examined.

The Ancients did NOT practice science. They practiced natural philosophy. Plato would have been horrified if you had suggested that he go out and experiment. Newton, great man that he was, did not practice modern science either. He was much farther along in the evolutionary process that was to become science (all things evolve, deal with it :) ) then was Plato and the other Ancients but the true scientific process had yet to fully evolve. If you can say that science is based upon a philosophy it is that science is based upon the removal of philosophy from the attempt to discover the nature of all matter, living and non-living. By the removal of philosophy, scientists attempt to obtain a distance from their work, a removal of expectations, if you will. All experiments are designed as best as possible to remove the expectation of a result. That is why we have controls. Controls allow us to make sure that what we are observing is not just what would happen without interference.

You are right, yuo cannot most likely prove that God created the universe. You can however, at this time, make reasonable conjectures from supporting evidence and I am sorry, God does not play a role in that.

Science is not anti-religion. Science is about making reasonable conjectures from supporting evidence. And this is why ID does not belong in a science room, this is why telling students that evolution might not be the source of biological complexity is lieing to them, and this is why science is driven to understand the nature of, well, nature, without the need for supernatural intervention.

[aikiMac]

These philosophies may have influenced the way these scientists went about making these scientific discoveries but had little to do with the discoveries themselves.
"Influenced." Okay, can we not say that one interprets new discoveries through the filter of what one already believes? That's the point I was driving at.


edit: Oh, and you didn't reply to my earlier post. (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=718643&postcount=227) :cry:
Well, yes, it's my understanding that "science" as we know it today was once joined with "philosophy" as we know it today.

You said: "Scientific theories will sometimes use a little philosophy to fill it's gaps and philosophies will sometimes use a bit of science to check that their theories are consistant with the natural world."

We could quibble over how often in time "sometimes" occurs, but I think we agree in essence. It's refreshing to find someone else who recognizes that science can not really be separated from philosophy.

You said: "Evolution started as and built up from natural observations of the world and built a theory around that. ID started as an idea that uses scientific facts to back it up. That's how Evolution is science and ID is philosophy."

I would agree that that's how they started, but to stop there would be misleading. I do not believe that today there is one single theory of evolution. I believe there are many variant theories that differ in their details but share a common core. That common core is that life arose wholly by naturalistic processes. That's an assumption based upon a philosophical belief, one that by definition excludes God from any conversation. (By definition God is supernatural -- duh.) In contrast, the core belief behind ID is that sometimes supernatural things happen.

For this reason ID doesn't have to be purely a philosophy, and evolution is not wholly divorced from philosophy. ID could be the philosophical support behind science if we allow ourselves the freedom to discard the assumption that supernatural events never occur, and look at the world with fresh eyes.

Thanks for looking at the world with fresh eyes. You make MAP a little bit nicer for rebels like me. :)

[holyheadjch]

For this reason ID doesn't have to be purely a philosophy, and evolution is not wholly divorced from philosophy. ID could be the philosophical support behind science if we allow ourselves the freedom to discard the assumption that supernatural events never occur, and look at the world with fresh eyes.

How in the world can ID be considered the philosophical support behind science, and more importantly how can the theory of evolution stand next to ID, they are conflicting arguments, the only difference is that one has evidence to support it, and the other does not, if you believe in ID fine, I do not, and I base my beliefs on the evidence provided, the longer this thread has gone on the more amazed I've been at the attempts to link ID with anything. Never did Newton say, "for my next theory I'm going to make the existance of a supernatural being that created the world an assumption."

I am all for religion, I think it gives comfort to those who need it, but lets not kid ourselves, the world is older than 6000 years, ID has absolutely no basis in science of any form and rather is attempting to exploit science for its own selfish goals.

[Strafio]

"Influenced." Okay, can we not say that one interprets new discoveries through the filter of what one already believes? That's the point I was driving at.
I get you. I think most scientists believed in creation (the best theory of the time) until Darwin found scientific evidence to the contrary and that's convinced most scientists to think differently since.

You said: "Evolution started as and built up from natural observations of the world and built a theory around that. ID started as an idea that uses scientific facts to back it up. That's how Evolution is science and ID is philosophy."

I would agree that that's how they started, but to stop there would be misleading. I do not believe that today there is one single theory of evolution. I believe there are many variant theories that differ in their details but share a common core. That common core is that life arose wholly by naturalistic processes. That's an assumption based upon a philosophical belief, one that by definition excludes God from any conversation. (By definition God is supernatural -- duh.) In contrast, the core belief behind ID is that sometimes supernatural things happen.
Slight disagreement here. People who believe in evolution don't necessarily seperate God from it. Many still believe in God, just believe that he intervenes in more subtle ways rather than 6 days of wand waving. Like I've said before, proper ID shouldn't necessarily clash with evolution.

For this reason ID doesn't have to be purely a philosophy, and evolution is not wholly divorced from philosophy. ID could be the philosophical support behind science if we allow ourselves the freedom to discard the assumption that supernatural events never occur, and look at the world with fresh eyes.
Sure. Science is rarely "pure" science and philosophy is rarely "pure" philosophy but ID still doesn't belong in a science class. Perhaps the answer is that philosophy should become a compulsory subject at school, where arguments for and against ID Vs Naturalism could be covered. (Ofcourse, it would be done properly and an Intelligent Designer might've designed us to evolve from primates rather than have "6 day creation" by default! ;))

Thanks for looking at the world with fresh eyes. You make MAP a little bit nicer for rebels like me. :)
The philosopher had to get a few words in between all these scientists! ;)