1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Does anyone believe Non Theists have some superior ability to be rational when it comes to evaluating science. Does that ability come from mutation and natural selection? If not where did it come from? Have all the issues become settled fact so that Science has changed to being a position, not a process. We can now deny the right to practice science to anyone who dares to question the official dogma?

Any takers on defining science?

[Lister]

Does anyone believe Non Theists have some superior ability to be rational when it comes to evaluating science. Does that ability come from mutation and natural selection? If not where did it come from? Have all the issues become settled fact so that Science has changed to being a position, not a process. We can now deny the right to practice science to anyone who dares to question the official dogma?

Any takers on defining science?

Theists and Non-Theists alike are continually bombarded by Social Pressures. What to eat, when to sleep, who to sleep with, what to believe, etc.

It is my belief that Theists are under additional pressure. That is, they are pressured to believe what the church, what the bible, and what their God tells them in addition to their friends, family and society.

If you want the definition of Science Shadow we can turn to our good old friend Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

Testable, predictive, logically and rationally explained. Does that work for you? While you, Shadow, maintain that your experience in religion has been one that provides for this environment the rest of us seem to be having a different experience.

If there’s a chance that Religion will provide pressure to counter an environment that is supportive of science then one has to assume that a Theist will be less capable at making judgments of science than a non-theists. This is because the Theist is under additional social pressure to make judgments based on that less supportive environment.

A New Earth Creationist for example would be under pressure from his faith to deny testable, predictive, logically and rationally explained evidence that the universe is older than their faith says it is.

Do you Shadow believe that every group of religious people (by and large) are open to thinking along the lines of the scientific definition above? Even those under Shari’ah Law?

[shadowhawk]

Does anyone believe Non Theists have some superior ability to be rational when it comes to evaluating science. Does that ability come from mutation and natural selection? If not where did it come from? Have all the issues become settled fact so that Science has changed to being a position, not a process. We can now deny the right to practice science to anyone who dares to question the official dogma?

Any takers on defining science?

Theists and Non-Theists alike are continually bombarded by Social Pressures. What to eat, when to sleep, who to sleep with, what to believe, etc.

It is my belief that Theists are under additional pressure. That is, they are pressured to believe what the church, what the bible, and what their God tells them in addition to their friends, family and society.

If you want the definition of Science Shadow we can turn to our good old friend Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

Testable, predictive, logically and rationally explained. Does that work for you? While you, Shadow, maintain that your experience in religion has been one that provides for this environment the rest of us seem to be having a different experience.

If there’s a chance that Religion will provide pressure to counter an environment that is supportive of science then one has to assume that a Theist will be less capable at making judgments of science than a non-theists. This is because the Theist is under additional social pressure to make judgments based on that less supportive environment.

A New Earth Creationist for example would be under pressure from his faith to deny testable, predictive, logically and rationally explained evidence that the universe is older than their faith says it is.

Do you Shadow believe that every group of religious people (by and large) are open to thinking along the lines of the scientific definition above? Even those under Shari’ah Law?

Every person alive has a world view. Theism is one of about seven. Do you think any other world view would make someone totally objective or more objective than a Theist. Proof? Given your reasoning wouldn’t you have to censor anyone with a world view? No one can do science. And of course ones subjective beliefs affect how one sees the world. Name me someone who is not influenced by their beliefs, What group? Can Atheists see design even if it is present? I s SETI science?

As for experiences, the vast majority o people in the world are Theists so you don’t speak for them nor can you exclude them from science. There is an agenda against the freedoms of Theists. My son is presently studying to be a Scientist. Can he be a scientist and believe in God. Most scientists do well while maintaining their beliefs. This smacks of bigotry.

Next time I will talk about your inadequate definition of science.

[Lister]

Every person alive has a world view. Theism is one of about seven. Do you think any other world view would make someone totally objective or more objective than a Theist. Proof? Given your reasoning wouldn’t you have to censor anyone with a world view? No one can do science. And of course ones subjective beliefs affect how one sees the world. Name me someone who is not influenced by their beliefs, What group? Can Atheists see design even if it is present? I s SETI science?

As for experiences, the vast majority o people in the world are Theists so you don’t speak for them nor can you exclude them from science. There is an agenda against the freedoms of Theists. My son is presently studying to be a Scientist. Can he be a scientist and believe in God. Most scientists do well while maintaining their beliefs. This smacks of bigotry.

Next time I will talk about your inadequate definition of science.

Hey now! That definition of Science is from the Wiki. If it's not adequate then I hope that "next time" is the next post below this one.

As far as your fear of censorship in my opinion the only views that need to be censored are those that cause a perceived harm. Views against equality among gender and sexual orientation (reasonable [IE Bestiality Not so reasonable]) for example are views that require censorship – because they are wrong. If you need proof as to them being wrong you don’t deserve proof. If you’re too blind to see the obvious you don’t deserve a chair at the table (with regards to anti-equality views anyways).

In fact it’s a pretty standard rule that views that cause harm as perceived by society should be censored. Now am I saying that ALL Theists have views that cause harm? Strawman Mr. Shadow. And it’s funny how you use the old “Show Me Proof” argument in the exact same way that your Atheist friends do. You see how I ignore it? Perhaps you can learn from that (yes you can teach an old dog new tricks).

Now, as I said before I’m not “cool” with excluding a scientist just because they work on Intelligent Design. Equality amongst views is a pretty weak, subjective area. That being said there is reasonable and unreasonable levels to everything. I don’t think any of my employees are less able to do their job because of their Faith. But I do expect that they will have varying and at times unreasonable views on things like abortion; though as I don’t run an abortion clinic their views (on abortion) have nothing to do with their job.

I don’t think ID causes harm all by itself. If though the “God Hates Fags” group starts using it as a process to legitimize their views well in that specific example it’s wrong and should be censored. I don’t know of any mainstream scientific views that promote hate/harm. I do however know many mainstream Theistic views that promote hate/harm (God Hates Fags is a good example). You say that someone who specifically promotes hate/harm is equally able to make Judgments? Again I’m not saying that all Theists promote hate/harm, but enough do that it’s of concern.

I really don’t think that any scientist should be censored if they’re working on science as per the Wiki definition. If it’s reasonable, logical, rational, predictive then it to me it’s ok. In this example any censorship could be seen as a form of bigotry; you’re right about that.

Has anyone even directly argued for ID censorship here yet? Perhaps indirectly but you seem to be making out that in this thread specifically we’re all out to shut ID theorists up!

I watched Expelled Shadow I get it.

Now if you’re talking about teaching ID in class rooms because it’s “No more right than Evolution/Naturalism” then I disagree with you. As I said Evolution/Naturalism has extremely solid proof in the short run. Also there isn’t much to teach in the long run anyways. I’ve never heard of high school science teachers teaching their students that Cells developed on Crystals. That would be just as silly as teaching ID.

Let me repeat myself: “You’re asking for the keys to the car before you’ve learned to walk.”

[Turnbuckle]

In fact it’s a pretty standard rule that views that cause harm as perceived by society should be censored.

Perhaps in some societies, but not in the US.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Hey now! That definition of Science is from the Wiki. If it's not adequate then I hope that "next time" is the next post below this one.

As far as your fear of censorship in my opinion the only views that need to be censored are those that cause a perceived harm. Views against equality among gender and sexual orientation (reasonable [IE Bestiality Not so reasonable]) for example are views that require censorship – because they are wrong. If you need proof as to them being wrong you don’t deserve proof. If you’re too blind to see the obvious you don’t deserve a chair at the table (with regards to anti-equality views anyways).

How do I keep this simple because we are dealing with philosophy when we attempt to define what Science is. In fact no one has defined scientifically what Science is. There are a number of definitions depending on your world view. Post modernists have there own views and there are realists and pragmatic Scientists who divide over issues of what is truth. Some Scientists are more interested in questions such as does it work rather than truth. I won’t try to give a description of Science here because there are so many aspects to it. http://en.wikipedia....ophy_of_science
http://atheism.about..._of_Science.htm
“What is science? This is a very reasonable question, but unfortunately it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer because there is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written in an effort to explain it all - and still people disagree.”

With this as a start how can anyone propose to censor Theists out of Science, especially sense they have been intimately involved from the start. As I mentioned SETI is just one example of where Scientists are looking for the marks of intelligence.

I find it strange and kind of narrow-minded; the views of censorship you propose.

In fact it’s a pretty standard rule that views that cause harm as perceived by society should be censored. Now am I saying that ALL Theists have views that cause harm? Strawman Mr. Shadow. And it’s funny how you use the old “Show Me Proof” argument in the exact same way that your Atheist friends do. You see how I ignore it? Perhaps you can learn from that (yes you can teach an old dog new tricks).

Don’t teach anyone anything that needs proof? OK but don’t complain if I just as easily dismiss it.

This brings up the necessity of proof in Science, but that is another issue. Does Science ever become absolutely proven?

Now, as I said before I’m not “cool” with excluding a scientist just because they work on Intelligent Design. Equality amongst views is a pretty weak, subjective area. That being said there is reasonable and unreasonable levels to everything. I don’t think any of my employees are less able to do their job because of their Faith. But I do expect that they will have varying and at times unreasonable views on things like abortion; though as I don’t run an abortion clinic their views (on abortion) have nothing to do with their job.

Do you ever discuss when a person becomes a human being or is that settled Science?

I don’t think ID causes harm all by itself. If though the “God Hates Fags” group starts using it as a process to legitimize their views well in that specific example it’s wrong and should be censored. I don’t know of any mainstream scientific views that promote hate/harm. I do however know many mainstream Theistic views that promote hate/harm (God Hates Fags is a good example). You say that someone who specifically promotes hate/harm is equally able to make Judgments? Again I’m not saying that all Theists promote hate/harm, but enough do that it’s of concern.

I do not think God hates anyone. This is entirely off topic. Being against adultery does not mean you hate adjusters, Straw man.

I really don’t think that any scientist should be censored if they’re working on science as per the Wiki definition. If it’s reasonable, logical, rational, predictive then it to me it’s ok. In this example any censorship could be seen as a form of bigotry; you’re right about that.

We agree!

Has anyone even directly argued for ID censorship here yet? Perhaps indirectly but you seem to be making out that in this thread specifically we’re all out to shut ID theorists up!

I can’t believe you are reading the same topic I am!!!

I watched Expelled Shadow I get it.

Good.

Now if you’re talking about teaching ID in class rooms because it’s “No more right than Evolution/Naturalism” then I disagree with you. As I said Evolution/Naturalism has extremely solid proof in the short run. Also there isn’t much to teach in the long run anyways. I’ve never heard of high school science teachers teaching their students that Cells developed on Crystals. That would be just as silly as teaching ID

.

Naturalism is a philosophy usually held by Atheists. What you are saying is that this philosophy should be taught because we don’t have time to teach anything else. Prove that random mutations has created life. Crystals!!! Another logical fallacy and straw man.

Let me repeat myself: “You’re asking for the keys to the car before you’ve learned to walk.”

What???

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 November 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[Lister]

First off the comment “Does Science ever become absolutely proven” is a bit redundant considering the mile long conversation we had on “Prove Me Wrong”.

The reason I targeted your “Proof” comment is because that was more of a tool used to prove a point rather than a reasonable request. I was saying that it is indeed a tad crude to often ask for proof where you know none exists; hence why I almost never ask for proof.

Comparing SETI is to ID is all fine and well except if we’re talking about high school classrooms where it is equally rejected (Teaching my kids about little green men! Nonsense!). Now I know this is the point where you’ll say “Ah hah! I’ve never mentioned high school class rooms! In fact they’re off topic!” but my topic is pretty vague to begin with and it seems to me this is important to ID supporters (to have it taught in high schools).

While I know on Expelled (where the crystal comment came from btw… nice catch) there appears to be a rather strong movement against ID being include in science, but there is no governing body like you said.

I cannot exclude ID from science and I cannot stand against it but then I don’t want to. I have no problem with people working on ID calling themselves Scientists so long as their methods are no different to any other scientists.

I actually COMPLETELY AGREE with you Shadow when you compare ID to SETI. I think that is a perfect comparison! SETI is often shunned by the scientific community and critically, SETI hasn’t found anything yet! Neither has ID; Lots of “Shadows” but no evidence.

You haven’t openly supported teaching ID in High School classrooms yet. Do you feel that it should be taught in high school classrooms alongside Evolution?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: First off the comment “Does Science ever become absolutely proven” is a bit redundant considering the mile long conversation we had on “Prove Me Wrong”.

So you think the topic “Prove Me Wrong,” means there is no longer any need for proof? I fail to see how that thread relates to this or my request for evidence.

The reason I targeted your “Proof” comment is because that was more of a tool used to prove a point rather than a reasonable request. I was saying that it is indeed a tad crude to often ask for proof where you know none exists; hence why I almost never ask for proof.

No proof as the basis for taking peoples rights away when it comes to Science. No Theists allowed in science. And you don’t even need evidence!

Comparing SETI is to ID is all fine and well except if we’re talking about high school classrooms where it is equally rejected (Teaching my kids about little green men! Nonsense!). Now I know this is the point where you’ll say “Ah hah! I’ve never mentioned high school class rooms! In fact they’re off topic!” but my topic is pretty vague to begin with and it seems to me this is important to ID supporters (to have it taught in high schools).

We are talking about high school? And, you started this Topic! We are talking about evidence of intelligence and design. Don’t teach kids to look for design because we have changed Science into naturalistic dogma. All the ID movement is asking for are the same rights and freedoms everyone else has.

While I know on Expelled (where the crystal comment came from btw… nice catch) there appears to be a rather strong movement against ID being include in science, but there is no governing body like you said.

I cannot exclude ID from science and I cannot stand against it but then I don’t want to. I have no problem with people working on ID calling themselves Scientists so long as their methods are no different to any other scientists.

Good, that is all they are asking.

I actually COMPLETELY AGREE with you Shadow when you compare ID to SETI. I think that is a perfect comparison! SETI is often shunned by the scientific community and critically, SETI hasn’t found anything yet! Neither has ID; Lots of “Shadows” but no evidence.

You haven’t openly supported teaching ID in High School classrooms yet. Do you feel that it should be taught in high school classrooms alongside Evolution?

I am a Libertarian and if you want to teach a dogmatic position then you should be free to start your own school and do so. The public schools should be open to all positions. Public Schools should be an open marketplace of ideas. Yes, I think ID should have a place at the debate.

[Lister]

So you think the topic “Prove Me Wrong,” means there is no longer any need for proof? I fail to see how that thread relates to this or my request for evidence.

No proof as the basis for taking peoples rights away when it comes to Science. No Theists allowed in science. And you don’t even need evidence!

Strawman. I'm saying you don't care about proof (in these specific examples). You're just asking for it to mock those that have asked you the same in the past. If you still want to try and string that around to a tune you enjoy then fine but I'm done with it.

If Proof is reasonable to obtain and discuss it’ll be part of reasonable discussions.

We are talking about high school? And, you started this Topic! We are talking about evidence of intelligence and design. Don’t teach kids to look for design because we have changed Science into naturalistic dogma. All the ID movement is asking for are the same rights and freedoms everyone else has.

That which is taught in high schools SHOULD be along the lines of what we’ve discovered using reasonable scientific methods. From my experience the science classroom discusses is mainly that which has been accepted as “discovered” for a long time.

Evolution on the short run has shown clear easily proven facts. What has ID discovered that we should teach in high school classrooms?

I am a Libertarian and if you want to teach a dogmatic position then you should be free to start your own school and do so. The public schools should be open to all positions. Public Schools should be an open marketplace of ideas. Yes, I think ID should have a place at the debate.

Your opinion of what is and isn’t dogmatic isn’t the issue. The issue is you haven’t explained what it is ID has proven that can be taught in class rooms. We cannot censor that which does not exist.

ID is a method. We don’t necessarily teach Evolution as a Method, we teach – we show what we can see through Evolution. There isn’t much to see on Long Run evolution so we don’t teach much. There is almost nothing to see in ID. Critically Evolution has a short run, ID does not.

What are we teaching here?

[shadowhawk]

SUBSCRIBE TO EVOLUTION NEWS. FREE
AND VERY INTERESTING RESEARCH NEWS.

http://www.discovery...is/download.php

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

TURNBUCKLE earlier, brought up "the Wedge," by Dr Johnson from UC Berkley who first used the phrase to describe the issues between Christianity and naturalism. Here is a very interesting talk by Dr. Johnson which should not be missed by anyone interested in the science of this issue.

[Stumped]

Ok first and foremost, first time poster, first time reader, but was brought in by lister. I have not fully read the posts so correct me if some of the ideals I bring up have already been beaten to death.

Ok now that is out of the way. I notice you guys arguements are trying to seperate the differences between these idea of ID and Creationsim. Well my humble opinion is that instead of trying to find the differences and seperate the two, why not try to bring them together to figure a stronger new logic?

Now to bring some examples of why i think in these terms, I have noted some of the bible references and the science and darwinsist comments also. I believe in all of these things, the bible got us started on thinking there was more to this world than met the "eye" which i have also seen brought into discussion. Science proved there was more to the eye, and darwin brought into the factor of how it all started and came to be as it is today. Now the reason i quote the eye again, (i having a rare eye condition really don't see how ID can be used in itself define that it was designed from an outside source) I have what's called coloboma, and if you have ever researched the condition, which I hope some of you will to counter my point, but by design the eye is still an evolving and flawed system.

At this time my mind runs in scattered fragments so bear with me and try to tear through this as best as you can. With that said now to bring ina "designer" or creator of life. There is nothing proving that wrong, actually I believe there is more evidence showing that our DNA and many other things were affected by an outside power, a "god" for lack of the better word, or if you want to think more in a scientfic and scifi way, an alien. Which brings me to the point of religion again, recently the pope actually made a statement that on an official levels that the religion as a whole believes in the possiblity of alien life. How do we know that the bible's stories when written the only word they had at the time to describe their "intervention" with a higher power was just an alien visit and written only because they wanted their experience to be shared with others? So wouldn't that explain a little of the ID, where the designer is not a human, and on the religious front prove that something of higher power than what a human is, helped change the throught process of 1 human. Which in essence recreates an Adam and possibly even an Eve. And restarting life again from that point? Why can't change itself be taken into factor of design? Humans and every creature on this planet i believe is constantly in a state of change, yes, we have a DNA code, 99.9% of that code may be exactly the same as every other human on this planet, but the .1% is what makes every single human unique and their own version of adam or eve.

Ok enough for now, get to ripping it apart.

[Lister]

Bring ID and Creationism together to strengthen the topic… That would certainly bring some power and drive to the topic but likely not in favour of Intelligent Design. The ID folks are all about driving a “wedge” between ID and the concept of a sinister plot (the supposed plot that religion wants to be part of Science to gain all benefits that would entail). Connecting the two would certainly make it easier to argue against ID though I feel it may miss the point.

On to the issue of the Eye - I have to ask an ID supporter: is the Eye still on the table as being proof of an Intelligent Creator? As Stumped says the Eye is nowhere near being an intelligent design.

At this time my mind runs in scattered fragments so bear with me and try to tear through this as best as you can. With that said now to bring ina "designer" or creator of life. There is nothing proving that wrong, actually I believe there is more evidence showing that our DNA and many other things were affected by an outside power, a "god" for lack of the better word, or if you want to think more in a scientfic and scifi way, an alien. Which brings me to the point of religion again, recently the pope actually made a statement that on an official levels that the religion as a whole believes in the possiblity of alien life. How do we know that the bible's stories when written the only word they had at the time to describe their "intervention" with a higher power was just an alien visit and written only because they wanted their experience to be shared with others? So wouldn't that explain a little of the ID, where the designer is not a human, and on the religious front prove that something of higher power than what a human is, helped change the throught process of 1 human. Which in essence recreates an Adam and possibly even an Eve. And restarting life again from that point? Why can't change itself be taken into factor of design? Humans and every creature on this planet i believe is constantly in a state of change, yes, we have a DNA code, 99.9% of that code may be exactly the same as every other human on this planet, but the .1% is what makes every single human unique and their own version of adam or eve.

That’s a wall Stumped! Btw you can cheat by copy and pasting from Word (that’s what I do). Try and read it aloud and see if it “flows”. I generally read everything I write aloud so I can show my roommate that I’m totally sane and ensure that my cat thinks he’s part of the debate.

I’m not 100% sure if this was the direction you were going but could the creator have gotten involved later than the beginning? That is to say things looked primitive while providing evidence of their natural origins but were artificially altered by an Intelligent Designer later on? Interesting thought…

Shadow seems to have side stepped my question of teachable content (through directing me to the ocean and telling me to catch a fish). Stumped do you think there is Intelligent Design “content” that could be taught in high school classrooms? Do you think it has the right to be there at all?

Thanks for stepping up and joining the conversation. These smart peoples can be intimidating… just do a good job of faking smarts like me and you’ll be fine (though I know I’m fooling no one).

Edited by Lister, 11 November 2012 - 04:41 AM.

[Stumped]

Yes I was trying to say that as a primitive species that we started off as, there was an "intervention" of sorts from an outside source, where DNA was mixed here and there, and than the finished product of that "creator" was thrown back into the mix to see what would develop. Think about it, we as humans have done this a number of times, maybe not on a genetic level as much as I am saying, but lets look at animal behaviors. You mention your cat, well was that cat always a domesticated cat? Was it's ancestors ever wild? The answer would be a resounding yes, at one point in your cat's ancestral life it was a wild animal, that a human collected, tamed and starting controlling it's individual choices in life. It no longer has to hunt, but it still have a primal urge to do so from time to time. And again with dogs, man's best friend, came from wolves that were tamed down from wild animals and made to serve our needs of protection among many other things. Horses also could be put in this, along with cattle, and many other animals. Now the scale of change is based more on behavior not so much genetic, at least at first Dogs have evolved into what we have to day from wild animals and their genetic code for development has changed since the first animals that were tamed were nothing but a domesticated wolf, or a dingo or who knows what, there are several species of dogs. We also introduced interbreeding of species to make new species of dogs to bring out certain attributes and bred out others to make the animal more to our liking.

Another example would be the domesticated pig. In one to two max generations of a pig being released back into the wild it becomes a wild boar again. Hell we even cloned a sheep. Who's to say this technology has not already been developed on a mass scale long before we were above throwing rocks to try and kill our prey? Many scientists believe that there is a missing link between our ancestors and our current selves. How did the human mind develop so fast on a evolutionary scale of time? Humans have made huge bounds in intelligence and the fact we have evolved to what we are today is not a surprise that something was tampered with, at least to me.

Again to prove a point of "intervention" would be with what we are doing to our produce, plants seeds are being changed genetically to grow larger, faster, stronger strains, they are being developed to survive outside their natural enviroment. Who are we to redesign nature's already sound product, unless we as humans see the benefitial use of making these changes to help feed ourselves basically. But this raises the question of if we are doing these alterings, how is it going to affect the plant in the long run? Will it continue to use the genetic code and develop into something we never imagined, for example, will the plant develop a toxin to humans to protect itself from us harvesting it, or will it produce even more fruit bearing material to help feed the people who are less fortunate?

With what I said there, does that not by definition make us gods? We took 1 animal, or 1 plant or whatever and changed it to fill our needs. Last time i read the bible God did exactly that, he created man in his image and gave us free will to do as we pleased, it's what made us different from the angels mentioned also, we were alotted free choice while they were told they had to follow his will. Now again this brings me to the whole alien theory again. Another race of humanoid like creatures, i won't say fellow humans because they would be much further advanced than us on the evolutionary time line i am speaking of, i.e. sticks and rocks. They gave their people a choice, they said you can stay on this planet and live out your days among us stick throwers or you can rejoin the main fleet and move onto the next adventure. Who can say this did not happen? The reason some may have chosen to stay was because of the alter of the genetic code in humans made them a compatible breed to their race, and so therefore breeding was started and modern man was created. This last statement brings me back to the Adam and Eve story.

Also to bring the pope back into it alittle to back my religious side of this, like before I said the christian religion up till recent years denied the fact that aliens existed until the latest pope actually made a statement that the church would no longer deny the existence of E.T. life. And the reason I bring this up is what I base alot of what i am saying above with the whole altering of our existence. The fact that a religion acknowledged other "not necessarily superior" beings proves that the church is opening up to science on a scale never before seen. They are not saying that there is an explanation for everything, but through science their "divine intervention" could be somewhat proven through a scientific method as another outsider watching overhead stepping in and helping us a species.

Oh and the word thing? not gonna happen, requires me buying the program, and I am to cheap to do so, hope this flows a little better for you.

[Lister]

Like short run Evolution one could argue for the existence of short run Intelligent Design (that design in nature we are responsible for). I’m surprised you didn’t argue for that Shadow…

Though is that then enough to then prove intelligent design has a place in science? No. Because the study of Design in nature we are responsible for is call Science… is it not?

Edited by Lister, 11 November 2012 - 06:07 AM.

[Stumped]

Like the short run Evolution one could argue for the existence of short run Intelligent Design (that design in nature we are responsible for). I’m surprised you didn’t argue for that Shadow…

Though is that then enough to then prove intelligent design has a place in science? No. Because the study of Design in nature we are responsible for is call Science… is it not?

ID also have validity because you can not always predict, so by theory since science is based on facts, how can an unknown be predicted and backed up with factual evidence until you design something? There are tons of trial and error methods before something is created the way we want it, but lets say it takes 100 tries to get the result you want, but throw in a what if the other 99 results were left and continued what would be designed from those errors?

[shadowhawk]

Ok first and foremost, first time poster, first time reader, but was brought in by lister. I have not fully read the posts so correct me if some of the ideals I bring up have already been beaten to death.

Ok now that is out of the way. I notice you guys arguements are trying to seperate the differences between these idea of ID and Creationsim. Well my humble opinion is that instead of trying to find the differences and seperate the two, why not try to bring them together to figure a stronger new logic?

Now to bring some examples of why i think in these terms, I have noted some of the bible references and the science and darwinsist comments also. I believe in all of these things, the bible got us started on thinking there was more to this world than met the "eye" which i have also seen brought into discussion. Science proved there was more to the eye, and darwin brought into the factor of how it all started and came to be as it is today. Now the reason i quote the eye again, (i having a rare eye condition really don't see how ID can be used in itself define that it was designed from an outside source) I have what's called coloboma, and if you have ever researched the condition, which I hope some of you will to counter my point, but by design the eye is still an evolving and flawed system.

At this time my mind runs in scattered fragments so bear with me and try to tear through this as best as you can. With that said now to bring ina "designer" or creator of life. There is nothing proving that wrong, actually I believe there is more evidence showing that our DNA and many other things were affected by an outside power, a "god" for lack of the better word, or if you want to think more in a scientfic and scifi way, an alien. Which brings me to the point of religion again, recently the pope actually made a statement that on an official levels that the religion as a whole believes in the possiblity of alien life. How do we know that the bible's stories when written the only word they had at the time to describe their "intervention" with a higher power was just an alien visit and written only because they wanted their experience to be shared with others? So wouldn't that explain a little of the ID, where the designer is not a human, and on the religious front prove that something of higher power than what a human is, helped change the throught process of 1 human. Which in essence recreates an Adam and possibly even an Eve. And restarting life again from that point? Why can't change itself be taken into factor of design? Humans and every creature on this planet i believe is constantly in a state of change, yes, we have a DNA code, 99.9% of that code may be exactly the same as every other human on this planet, but the .1% is what makes every single human unique and their own version of adam or eve.

Ok enough for now, get to ripping it apart.

Stumped welcome to the discussion of wether ID is in or out of Scie3nce. I have been arguing that it should be in. So you have made a number of assumptions that are off topic. The only way you will be able to understand it is to read the string. It is not about the difference of ID and Creationism. It is not about separating the two nor trying to tie them together in a new logic.

The Bible has nothing to do with ID. I say this and I am a Christian. This is not a Darwin against the Bible issue. Both Darwinism and ID are science though they differ on some points. Being part of a scientific process does not mean any thesis is true. SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION.

We could talk about design and evil or if ID is consistent with that but it is off topic. Sorry about your illness. Perhaps we could start a problem of evil topic. At any point going off topic usually ends up in total gibberish.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Shadow seems to have side stepped my question of teachable content (through directing me to the ocean and telling me to catch a fish). Stumped do you think there is Intelligent Design “content” that could be taught in high school classrooms? Do you think it has the right to be there at all?

I don’t recall sidestepping this at all. I am for teaching all competing views in public schools. Because there is controversy, should only Republican or Democrats get to teach Political Science?

[shadowhawk]

Stumped: Also to bring the pope back into it alittle to back my religious side of this, like before I said the christian religion up till recent years denied the fact that aliens existed until the latest pope actually made a statement that the church would no longer deny the existence of E.T. life. And the reason I bring this up is what I base alot of what i am saying above with the whole altering of our existence. The fact that a religion acknowledged other "not necessarily superior" beings proves that the church is opening up to science on a scale never before seen. They are not saying that there is an explanation for everything, but through science their "divine intervention" could be somewhat proven through a scientific method as another outsider watching overhead stepping in and helping us a species.

This is completely incorrect. It betrays a total ignorance of history. Christianity, from the beginning, believes in many life forms beside humans. Aliens have existed before humans. Off topic. The Pope didn’t just come to believe this.

[shadowhawk]

Stumped: Also to bring the pope back into it alittle to back my religious side of this, like before I said the christian religion up till recent years denied the fact that aliens existed until the latest pope actually made a statement that the church would no longer deny the existence of E.T. life. And the reason I bring this up is what I base alot of what i am saying above with the whole altering of our existence. The fact that a religion acknowledged other "not necessarily superior" beings proves that the church is opening up to science on a scale never before seen. They are not saying that there is an explanation for everything, but through science their "divine intervention" could be somewhat proven through a scientific method as another outsider watching overhead stepping in and helping us a species.

This is completely incorrect. It betrays a total ignorance of history. Christianity, from the beginning, believes in many life forms beside humans. Aliens have existed before humans. Off topic. The Pope didn’t just come to believe this.

[Lister]

Lister: Shadow seems to have side stepped my question of teachable content (through directing me to the ocean and telling me to catch a fish). Stumped do you think there is Intelligent Design “content” that could be taught in high school classrooms? Do you think it has the right to be there at all?

I don’t recall sidestepping this at all. I am for teaching all competing views in public schools. Because there is controversy, should only Republican or Democrats get to teach Political Science?

You're for teaching... what, exactly? That's my question. I'm guessing you needed me to ask it again? Well I have no problem repeating myself.

Evolution/Naturalism has a list of short run (Millions to Billions of years) evidence which can be taught in classrooms. That means you can teach students about both the process, and the conclusions that it’s found based on narrow black and white situations.

In the long run Evolution/Naturalism suffers the same reliance on unknown factors that ID suffers; hence it is rare to find much if any content taught regarding Evolution/Naturalism on the long run (Billions of Years+).

So, considering long run Naturalism/Evolution is almost never taught, what does ID have that can be taught (considering it’s rare and a bit silly to teach a process that has no conclusive results).

Can you say that the possible creator behind DNA is as conclusive as Evolved Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria? No. Don’t be silly.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Shadow seems to have side stepped my question of teachable content (through directing me to the ocean and telling me to catch a fish). Stumped do you think there is Intelligent Design “content” that could be taught in high school classrooms? Do you think it has the right to be there at all?

I don’t recall sidestepping this at all. I am for teaching all competing views in public schools. Because there is controversy, should only Republican or Democrats get to teach Political Science?

You're for teaching... what, exactly? That's my question. I'm guessing you needed me to ask it again? Well I have no problem repeating myself.

Evolution/Naturalism has a list of short run (Millions to Billions of years) evidence which can be taught in classrooms. That means you can teach students about both the process, and the conclusions that it’s found based on narrow black and white situations.

In the long run Evolution/Naturalism suffers the same reliance on unknown factors that ID suffers; hence it is rare to find much if any content taught regarding Evolution/Naturalism on the long run (Billions of Years+).

So, considering long run Naturalism/Evolution is almost never taught, what does ID have that can be taught (considering it’s rare and a bit silly to teach a process that has no conclusive results).

Can you say that the possible creator behind DNA is as conclusive as Evolved Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria? No. Don’t be silly.

I am for teaching Science. Science is a process not a position as I have stated dozens of times. I hope I do not have to say it again. Evolution and Naturalism are not the same thing. Evolution is not Science but Science can study it. Science cannot study naturalism which is a philosophy. I am for teaching philosophy of all kinds but not as science. Science is not a synonym of Naturalism, the entire point of “The Wedge.”

Show me by using science, that Naturalism but not ID, should be the only thing taught in school. Billions of years does not equal science. Most ID proponents believe the cosmos is billions of years old but what is a year. I have posted on this a couple of times elsewhere and it is off topic here.

Don’t teach anything that does not already have a conclusive result? You have destroyed Science with this non scientific philosophy.

Obviously your statement on Antibiotic Bacteria shows you understand neither evolution nor ID. I will resist the temptation to address this further except to say read “Darwin’s Black Box,” for a great beginning discussion on Bacteria and ID.

As for your final question. Science is a process and as such finds theories wrong as much as right. Naturalism is an unproven philosophy. I am against censuring speech..

[Deep Blue]

You may feel ID is wrong but as yet I have not seen any definitive presentation which disproves it. Can aspects of ID be disproved?

This is incorrect. Disproving ID is not a necessity.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for ID. Not the other way around.

To support your position you have shown zero peer-reviewed articles that have been accepted to pubmed, nature, science, or other reputed scientific journal.

Therefore, we must conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

Furthermore, ID makes no testable predictions. Therefore, ID is not falsifiable. If you believe there are testable predictions that ID makes, please list them here.

Otherwise, we must again conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

Edited by Deep Blue, 13 November 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

You may feel ID is wrong but as yet I have not seen any definitive presentation which disproves it. Can aspects of ID be disproved?

This is incorrect. Disproving ID is not a necessity.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for ID. Not the other way around.

To support your position you have shown zero peer-reviewed articles that have been accepted to pubmed, nature, science, or other reputed scientific journal.

Therefore, we must conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

Furthermore, ID makes no testable predictions. Therefore, ID is not falsifiable. If you believe there are testable predictions that ID makes, please list them here.

Otherwise, we must again conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

I did not say that disproving ID was necessary. Sense I am not part of ID and am not a Scientist, I am not directly involved in establishing proof. When someone says there is no design they also have a burden of proof. You aren’t saying that are you? Sounds like it.

We must conclude. In the middle of scientific enquirer what? They are working on it..

I have pointed out peer review sources, though being peer reviewed s not necessary fir science to take place. http://www.discovery...logs=2&limit=20
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

I have many more peer review sources but I have posted on this a number of times and it is getting boring.

Is it falsefiable? Let’s see if it matches up with evolution which we all agree can be taught in school

"Evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then ID proponents dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, then ID proponents argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

How about ID?


OK, deep Blue, show me ID is not falsefiable?

Yes, it is falsified by Darwinians. http://www.evolution...ifia005061.html

Conclusion: ID is as much a world view as Naturalism.

[DAMABO]

You may feel ID is wrong but as yet I have not seen any definitive presentation which disproves it. Can aspects of ID be disproved?

This is incorrect. Disproving ID is not a necessity.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for ID. Not the other way around.

To support your position you have shown zero peer-reviewed articles that have been accepted to pubmed, nature, science, or other reputed scientific journal.

Therefore, we must conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

Furthermore, ID makes no testable predictions. Therefore, ID is not falsifiable. If you believe there are testable predictions that ID makes, please list them here.

Otherwise, we must again conclude: There is no reason to subscribe to ID as a scientific world view.

evolutionary explanations for this or that behavior, or this or that transition are quite ad hoc and unfalsifiable as well. can you personally predict what happens in the past? you can infer, but that is exactly what ID theorists do as well. In fact, ID doesn't even need to be falsified... It is confirmed. Take a look at our environment. Almost all of it is manipulated by intelligent designers, us humans. Clearly, we can manipulate genes, create species, (genetic evolution),vast structures and roads (geological evolution) - which clearly means intelligent beings design. Are you arrogant enough to believe you are of the only intelligent species in the vast universe? Is it too hard to imagine that intelligent beings might have existed before us, and that they may have had some influence here and there? The problem is, I hope you agree, with assigning specific properties or specific acts to the possible intelligences we do not know nothing of. This perhaps is where some ID theorists cross the line: they jump to conclusions about one event being 'almost certainly caused by a designer'. The truth is, each case in se has very little likelihood being caused by a designer, since intelligence is scarce. That doesn't mean that intelligence never created new species/universes. And this is the only thing a reasonable proponent ID can claim: that there are intelligences that - although scarce throughout the universe - can influence matter to create new species and such.
There is no conflict between a evolutionary worldview and an ID worldview. The existence of intelligence, after all, is made possible by evolution. What some may forget is that, just because in the beginning of life on earth there was no intelligence here on earth, doesn't mean there was no intelligence elsewhere. In correct terminology, ID is a manifestation of evolution. Whenever specific attributions are made however, we end up with things like Scientology, flying Spaghetti Monster and such. And maybe this happens enough to justify saying ID is fringe.

Edited by DAMABO, 14 November 2012 - 01:39 AM.

[Lister]

Let’s break it down. I’m not scientist but understanding Grade 11 Biology shouldn’t be that difficult.

What do we teach our students with regards to Naturalism/Evolution?

What would we teach our students with regards to ID?

Shadow if I have to stand up in front of a school board and ask for support for ID in the classrooms I’m going to have to provide them with a curriculum.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO: evolutionary explanations for this or that behavior, or this or that transition are quite ad hoc and unfalsifiable as well. can you personally predict what happens in the past? you can infer, but that is exactly what ID theorists do as well. In fact, ID doesn't even need to be falsified... It is confirmed.

Time is very interesting in that everything is in a continual state of change. You literally can’t step into the same stream twice, nor can you perform the same scientific experiments twice. Time only goes forward and change takes place in time. Fortunately some things change slowly and we can get an approximate experiments. The same goes for the past except change does not tale place because it is tied to time. Evolution is a theory of the past as much as ID. The only thing we directly experience is an ever changing, “Now.” If this is a weakness for ID so it is also for Evolution.

Take a look at our environment. Almost all of it is manipulated by intelligent designers, us humans. Clearly, we can manipulate genes, create species, (genetic evolution),vast structures and roads (geological evolution) - which clearly means intelligent beings design. Are you arrogant enough to believe you are of the only intelligent species in the vast universe? Is it too hard to imagine that intelligent beings might have existed before us, and that they may have had some influence here and there? The problem is, I hope you agree, with assigning specific properties or specific acts to the possible intelligences we do not know nothing of. This perhaps is where some ID theorists cross the line: they jump to conclusions about one event being 'almost certainly caused by a designer'. The truth is, each case in se has very little likelihood being caused by a designer, since intelligence is scarce. That doesn't mean that intelligence never created new species/universes. And this is the only thing a reasonable proponent ID can claim: that there are intelligences that - although scarce throughout the universe - can influence matter to create new species and such.

I think you are in error here. ID does not try to identify the designer. You can try to such as in evolution. Natural Selection and Random Mutations are the designer in evolution. The best we can do is try to make sense of History because to date we have not been able to demonstrate evolution. If you want we can discuss why change alone, is not evolution.

There is no conflict between a evolutionary worldview and an ID worldview. The existence of intelligence, after all, is made possible by evolution. What some may forget is that, just because in the beginning of life on earth there was no intelligence here on earth, doesn't mean there was no intelligence elsewhere. In correct terminology, ID is a manifestation of evolution. Whenever specific attributions are made however, we end up with things like Scientology, flying Spaghetti Monster and such. And maybe this happens enough to justify saying ID is fringe.

You would have to show how random mutations produce intelligence. So, the world views are not the same. Without intelligence you can’‘t have design. Discover design and you have a case for ID.

Naturalism, not Evolution is where the war is at. We have a lot of people passing off Naturalism, which is a philosophy, as science. That is why we have discussions like this.

[shadowhawk]

Let’s break it down. I’m not scientist but understanding Grade 11 Biology shouldn’t be that difficult.

What do we teach our students with regards to Naturalism/Evolution?

What would we teach our students with regards to ID?

Shadow if I have to stand up in front of a school board and ask for support for ID in the classrooms I’m going to have to provide them with a curriculum.

Well, to start off you would have to study ID enough to know what it is. You would need to know why evolution and Naturalism are not the same thing. You would need to understand what science is. You would need to value oneness and that in science you are wrong as much as right and truth Nazis are not the friend of science when they try to restrict scientific process. I could go on but I tire.

As far as Naturalism/Evolution, they are not the same and you would have to understand why. As for the curriculum, teach the controversy. Very few things are one sided and you’re not educated unless you understand the views. Be fair.

[DAMABO]

Take a look at our environment. Almost all of it is manipulated by intelligent designers, us humans. Clearly, we can manipulate genes, create species, (genetic evolution),vast structures and roads (geological evolution) - which clearly means intelligent beings design. Are you arrogant enough to believe you are of the only intelligent species in the vast universe? Is it too hard to imagine that intelligent beings might have existed before us, and that they may have had some influence here and there? The problem is, I hope you agree, with assigning specific properties or specific acts to the possible intelligences we do not know nothing of. This perhaps is where some ID theorists cross the line: they jump to conclusions about one event being 'almost certainly caused by a designer'. The truth is, each case in se has very little likelihood being caused by a designer, since intelligence is scarce. That doesn't mean that intelligence never created new species/universes. And this is the only thing a reasonable proponent ID can claim: that there are intelligences that - although scarce throughout the universe - can influence matter to create new species and such.

I think you are in error here. ID does not try to identify the designer. You can try to such as in evolution. Natural Selection and Random Mutations are the designer in evolution. The best we can do is try to make sense of History because to date we have not been able to demonstrate evolution. If you want we can discuss why change alone, is not evolution.

They may not jump to a conclusion about who the designer is, but they do specify which trait - human eyeball for instance - is caused by a designer. This is where I have most trouble with. Each such explanation is extremely unlikely, given that evolution is a constant force, and intelligent beings are scarce.

There is no conflict between a evolutionary worldview and an ID worldview. The existence of intelligence, after all, is made possible by evolution. What some may forget is that, just because in the beginning of life on earth there was no intelligence here on earth, doesn't mean there was no intelligence elsewhere. In correct terminology, ID is a manifestation of evolution. Whenever specific attributions are made however, we end up with things like Scientology, flying Spaghetti Monster and such. And maybe this happens enough to justify saying ID is fringe.

You would have to show how random mutations produce intelligence. So, the world views are not the same. Without intelligence you can’‘t have design. Discover design and you have a case for ID.

So you think the following explanation for intelligence is better?(how I summarize your view):
an intelligent designer (which you call an immaterial god) exists a priori, nothing else exists at this time.
then he decides to create the earth, and lets it follow evolutionary rules. consequently, he intervenes to produce intelligent beings.

Several problems exist.
1. Intelligence arose out of nowhere in the beginning, so we don't need an intelligent designer to produce intelligence. But neither did this being come from evolution since he was 'the first'.

2. What is intelligence? You will most likely have to recognize that bacteria are slightly intelligent, since they integrate sensory information to make their decisions. Did this intelligent being intervene at each succesive step of 'pseudo'-evolution ?


Naturalism, not Evolution is where the war is at. We have a lot of people passing off Naturalism, which is a philosophy, as science. That is why we have discussions like this.

can you elaborate? I don't think that anything is 'supernatural'. if the supernatural would exist, it would simply be because it has been given a wrong name.

[Lister]

Well, to start off you would have to study ID enough to know what it is. You would need to know why evolution and Naturalism are not the same thing. You would need to understand what science is. You would need to value oneness and that in science you are wrong as much as right and truth Nazis are not the friend of science when they try to restrict scientific process. I could go on but I tire.

As far as Naturalism/Evolution, they are not the same and you would have to understand why. As for the curriculum, teach the controversy. Very few things are one sided and you’re not educated unless you understand the views. Be fair.

Sadly Shadow, Damabo has responded above me and now it feels as though we’re ganging up on you. Well nothing new there really.

You didn’t answer the question. We’re not talking about educating university students here we’re talking about educating 15 year olds. Things are very much simplified at this level. In a sense you should be able to easily explain in one paragraph the position taken by ID theorists vs. the position taken by Evolution theorists (Naturalism). What are we teaching here?

And hang on… If Naturalism is the position and Evolution is the process, what’s the position for ID being that it’s also a process? If Naturalism is the battleground then who’s the other side? ID is not a position as you keep banging on and on about… so then it can’t battle against Naturalism.