(as crapola as this week has been, we all need a laugh)
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I so want a temperature vs. pirates shirt. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Cute argument
I personally don't understand why some parents are threatened by the idea of their children hearing ideas they don't agree with in school. If you play any kind of significant role in your children's life, you can make your views heard much more clearly than anything they'll pick up anywhere else. If simply hearing a different idea is a threat, then you'd better keep them locked in the basement for the rest of their lives ...
Seriously, if you want them to be strong in your faith, TEACH them to hear conflicting views and to understand the REASONS why they should continue to believe what they do in spite of them.
If you can't think of any reasons, then you have an entirely different problem Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And that is why he is the Dog.
Well said.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That ROCKS!
LOL
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's not the conflicting views that give many parents problems, it's the fact that something that isn't a science is being presented as such. These parents ask, "What are your ministers teaching your children? Aren't they the ones to instruct them in the ways of God? Why pretend that this is science?"
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Bob, you do realize that my post was critical of Intelligent Design and supportive of Evolution, right?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I skimmed it first, re-opened the thread and looked at your post, went to edit mine only to discover that you're not working like you're supposed to be and so you'd already read mine, thus compelling me to leave me post up for the world to see for ever more.
This is what happens when you post from work, Puppy. You should be ashamed. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Itelligent design... isn't that the idea that Evolution is the result of God's plan for the Universe, or something like that?
To me it seems like Potato vs. Potato. I don't get the hubub.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The way I understand it, Intelligent Design is the latest name for the longstanding quest to search out scientific justification for believing in the story of Genesis. I believe that it actually rejects evolution ... but I may be wrong about that ..?
I'll say this. It definitely rejects natural selection Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
On the Onion Radio News this morning, there was a beautiful spoof of the whole creationism/evolution argument. They said that lawmakers in Georgia were trying to ban the theory of multiplication from math textbooks. In the end, they decided to mark each book with a sticker that says "This is just a theory" before burning the books in the town square.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You guys!
They've been teaching my kids Flying Spaghetti Monsterism at the public school here in New York for the past four years.
It's actually been a problem, since a lot of the children don't understand the whole "Pirates vs. Temperature" thing, and have instead been poking each other in the eyes with sharp sticks (now, what could be better than that?!)
But, just to balance things out, they've been teaching "Jesus is a load of crap" to them in Gym class.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Rejecting natural selection is like rejecting squirrels.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Have you ever had a squirrel jump on your legs trying to get to your nuts? You'd reject them too.
edit : I think I should add that I'm referring to peanuts.
[ August 11, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: zgator ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
ID encapsulates ideas like irreducible complexity and proposes that life as we know it could not exist without a designer. This is at the very least an implicit rejection of evolutionary principles.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
School is not a place to advocate any type of religious belief. That's the parents' job. However, I think the school system should be thorough in it's discussion of evolution. They should also spend a little time discussing where the theory is incomplete, not necessarily implying that it's flawed because of it's incompleteness, just that it's a work in progress.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I guess I don't see why belief in God and acceptance of biological rinciples have to be mutually exclusive.
I think ascribing the complexity of life to chance alone requires a bit faith, as well.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I found that site a few days ago and converted to Pastafarianism. I can honestly say I have been touched been touched by His noodly appendage.
I've started wearing an eye patch now and greeting my friends and husband with "Avast" in an effort to stem global climate change. The fake peg leg makes driving difficult.
RAmen.
Pix
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Camus,
In other words...teach the scientific method.
Agreed.
But should they introduce non-scientific popular theories in science class just to make a bunch of frustrated religious fundamentalists happy?
Anybody here see the Nightline broadcast on this last night (8/10/05). Everyone who wants to smack Cal Thomas across the top of his smug little head with a stick, raise your hand.
I think the news should focus more on the Lack of Pirates issue. We need more pirates.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Olivetta! It's great that you're doing your part to fight global warming! But I hope your eye feels better!
Arrrrrrr Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: The way I understand it, Intelligent Design is the latest name for the longstanding quest to search out scientific justification for believing in the story of Genesis. I believe that it actually rejects evolution ... but I may be wrong about that ..?
I'll say this. It definitely rejects natural selection
I don't think it rejects natural selection as we can observing happening right now.
But I do think that it rejects natural selection as the origin of the species.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I went to private religious schools. Our biology teacher taught us the theories of evolution and also went over some of the holes in theories. I think he did a pretty good job of educating us on the whole thing. We learned about the difference between micro and macro evolution and the big bang theory, and what the missing link really refers to... What I got from it is that underneath it all, it all takes faith...whether you're an evolutionist or a creationist.
However, if I went to public school, I would expect to be taught evolution. But not for very long. That's like what.. a week or two at the beginning of the year? And then you move on to actually studying life. Yeah, once in a while you get to a sentence that says a million trillion years ago. Deal with it. Move on. I'd also expect to get a teacher who is religiously fanatical about evolution, but I wouldn't bother to have a big Jack Chick inspired Evolution vs. Creation debate with him. How utterly pointless.
Dog's right on... these people need to be teaching their children what they believe at home.
You're an idiot if you actually trust the schools to teach your kids the right things all the time.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
On a related note about schools teaching things parents should be teaching...
There was an episode of South Park about teaching sex ed. in the schools on last night. Although I have grown less and less tolerant with South Park, there wasn't anything else on that I felt like watching... so on it stayed. Anyway, after the parents had insisted that the schools teach sex ed (they were too embarrassed to do it themselves) and they kept on teaching it to younger and younger students, Chef got upset at them all at the end. He said the parents had to do it because in the schools you never know if it's being taught by someone who doesn't know anything (Mr. Mackey), someone who's had a bad experience with it (Ms. WeirdNameIWon'tSayHere), or a pervert (Mr. Garrison). The same principle can be applied to teaching creationism (Or Intelligent Design) in schools. You don't know who's teaching it... so just do it yourself.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:In other words...teach the scientific method.
Agreed.
But should they introduce non-scientific popular theories in science class just to make a bunch of frustrated religious fundamentalists happy?
Yes, basically just the scientific method. 1. Here's the data. 2. This is what scientists have inferred from the data. 3. This is what the data doesn't imply. 4. Here are the areas where we're still looking for more data. 5. Trust the students to figure out for themselves if they think the data is enough proof to support evolution. 6. If the students have doubts about the Theory of Evolution, then they can go to Bible school to search for a convincing alternative.
Teachers should not advocate specific non-scientific alternatives, but neither should they be prohibited from mentioning that there are alternatives or prohibiting their students from discussing perceived flaws in the Theory of Evolution.
quote:I think the news should focus more on the Lack of Pirates issue. We need more pirates.
I think there are plenty of them out there, they just call themselves politicians now. Anyone else think Bush with an eye patch would look like a pirate?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the news should focus more on the Lack of Pirates issue. We need more pirates.
I blame the DMCA.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Schools need to decide whether just to include scientific observations in Science class, or whether to also include the interpretation of those obvservations.
If they want to restrict it simply to what has been observed through experimentation and the scientific method, then the history of the earth and the evolution of life should not be mentioned at all, because you can't experiment on the past. Instead, you can only experiment on the present and interpret it in a way to draw conclusions about the past.
Now, if you do want to include discussion of how to interpret scientific evidence, then I think you absolutely need to include a discussion of alternative possible interpretations - and Intelligent Design is a very popular alternative interpretation of scientific data. To leave out alternative interpretation is to suggest to youngsters that the most popular theory in the scientific community is always the right theory, which is not only extremely unscientific, but also one of the biggest obstacles to scientific advancement. History has proven that seemingly strange or unpopular interpretations often turn out to be true.
And let's be realistic: The real reason science educators don't want to discuss Intelligent Design in science class is because God is in it. God violates the modern scientific paradigm, and so they think anything with God in it should not be discussed in a scientific fashion in Science class. Here, I think, the scientists themselves need a lesson in scientific method. Scientists need to recognize that the scientific method does not presuppose any paradigm, and that it is the process of experimentation that makes something scientific, rather than the content of the theory. If God can be examined in a scientific fashion, then it does not matter if religions believe in Him. If God can be viewed rationally through scientific theory, He becomes a matter for science to discuss. This is not a "trick" by fundamentalists to sneak God into science. This is how science is supposed to operate - it is supposed to investigate as much as is possible under the scientific method. It is true that we cannot directly experiment upon God, but it is also true that we can examine interpretations of scientific data that includes God as a possible explanation. To do otherwise would be to impose excessive assumptions on the scientific method.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The real reason science educators don't want to discuss Intelligent Design in science class is because God is in it.
Interestingly enough, ID proponents claim quite loudly that God is not in ID. ANY creator could be in it -- like, say, a super-smart alien. Oddly, they seem uncomfortable with this interpretation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The same principle can be applied to teaching creationism (Or Intelligent Design) in schools. You don't know who's teaching it... so just do it yourself.
That's not a very good principle to work upon. If true, it would imply that there should be no schools, and that all children should be home schooled.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
Teachers don't want to teach ID in science class for the sole reason that it is NOT science. No one is agaisnt teaching ID or creationism in sociology or religious study, etc.
And for reference, we aren't afraid of God, just as you aren't afraid of the Spaghetti Monster, because both of them don't exist.
(and does anyone else not see how this is a totaly ripoff of the IPU???)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Evolution is not the current preferred model solely because it's popular, that seems to imply it's just the current fad. Evolution -- at least the broad strokes of it -- has had opposing theories thrown at it for a hundred years and still fits the facts we know. It's ben refined, yes. There are still many things we don't know and possibly won't ever know, certainly.
I have no problem at all with mentioning that there may have been intelligent motive behind creation or evolutionary processes. I have big problems with the introduction of irreducible complexity and young earth theories, and other notions which seem to ignore scientific inquiry in favor of supporting a specific and carefully unmentioned religion.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Did anyone else learn about Spontaneous Generation in biology or science class? That mud turns into frogs and a bag of grain will create mice? I loved SG, it's a great illustration of how scientific observation can lead to a hypothesis that is widely accepted as true but later disproved by controlled experiments and more in-depth observation. It's very good for learning about how scientific method actually works over the longer term.
Intelligent Design should be taught much like that. If you add the observation that an intellegence is itself more complicated than the systems it creates, ID seems to pretty effectively disprove itself.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Teachers don't want to teach ID in science class for the sole reason that it is NOT science. No one is agaisnt teaching ID or creationism in sociology or religious study, etc.
But it IS science, or at least an interpretation of science, which is just as scientific as the evolutionary theory of the origin of life.
If ID belongs in religion class, then evolutionary theories also belong in religion class rather than science class, because they are both mere interpretations, based on a combination of scientific evidence and other scientificly unproven assumptions. Both could also be put in history classes. However, doing so would make it difficult to teachers to show how scientific data is used to support either evolution or ID.
If we are being fair, what matters is that both are examined in the same class, because both are of the same category of theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But it IS science, or at least an interpretation of science, which is just as scientific as the evolutionary theory of the origin of life.
Except that it's not, Tres.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tres, I find it funny that you are cirtiszing the scientists for not using the scientific method, when in fact that IS what they do, all the time.
They have been all over the press complaining (rightly, I believe) about this crap, and almost every single one of them says that ID may be correct, but that it is a philosophy rather than a provable theory or science.
They then challange their debete opponants to prove any of their theories, and the sum up by saying that once ID has gone through the other steps of the scientific method THEN it can be accepted as science. That until they are shown any sort of proof it is no more than a philosophy or religion in sheep's skin, and it should be avoided.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:because both are of the same category of theory.
Bull$hit.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tresopax - should Christian Science theories of medicine and healing be taught in medical schools?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Consider: the argument every ID argument boils down to is "its so improbable it must be done by an intelligent designer". That is a completely unscientific argument -- the improbability of an occurence calculated from incomplete data (which almost all the data IDers invoke is) does not indicate the high probability of one possible alternative occurence.
Furthermore, as ID "theory" never gives this designer any testable attributes, his existence (as described by that "theory") is not the subject of science.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except that it's not, Tres.
Except that it is.
If you think it's not, why not? To be more specific, what about ID contradicts the scientific method that is not equally present in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life?
quote:They then challange their debete opponants to prove any of their theories, and the sum up by saying that once ID has gone through the other steps of the scientific method THEN it can be accepted as science. That until they are shown any sort of proof it is no more than a philosophy or religion in sheep's skin, and it should be avoided.
Which would be valid, except that the evolutionary theory of the origin of life has not shown any sort of scientific proof either. No proof has shown up that life evolved by random chance. So, you can't exclude ID for that reason while including the other theory in science classes, when the other theory falls victim to the exact same fault.
If you do think there is scientific proof that life did evolve by chance rather than by intelligent design, please keep one things in mind: Evidence that life evolved from other life is not evidence that it did so by chance. Both of those theories accept that life evolved in one fashion or another - disputing only the method through which they evolved, and whether it involved an intelligence.
Thus, in order to claim the evolutionary view is science and that the ID view is not, some piece of evidence must support the former and NOT the latter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, here's a nice example of a "theory" which meets the exact same merits as ID "theory" -- it uses the exact same "evidence" of improbability, and is exactly as testable:
The current reality is nothing but a dream in a perfect Matrix-like system.
Clearly it must be taught in schools as well.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I love that Olivet came up with such a creative way of disguising the fact that she actually has a compound eye. Eyepatch indeed! Very clever.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax - should Christian Science theories of medicine and healing be taught in medical schools?
If they have proven effective.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: You guys!
They've been teaching my kids Flying Spaghetti Monsterism at the public school here in New York for the past four years.
It's actually been a problem, since a lot of the children don't understand the whole "Pirates vs. Temperature" thing, and have instead been poking each other in the eyes with sharp sticks (now, what could be better than that?!)
But, just to balance things out, they've been teaching "Jesus is a load of crap" to them in Gym class.
Awesome post, Steve. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would like to volunteer to make pirate garb for anyone who wishes to help stem global warming but cannot afford the proper attire.
RAmen.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
okay, maybe it was god's divine plan that the universe creates itself with observable las and that he doesn't actually know what will happen and when we came around came to us when he/she/it thought we were ready.
Just a thought. I'm thinking that maybe, we jut ginnypigs. o.0
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres, evolution has shown some very nice scientific proof for some elements of it. They're called speciation events, and there are oodles of them that we've seen.
And you're completely mischaracterizing evolutionary theory, too. Evolutionary theory doesn't say life evolved by chance, it says that the change in life over time is consistent with notions of natural selection of naturally occurring genetic variations -- that these genetic variations occur due to chance events is something we have direct evidence for (mutations have been well studied), but that's a separate question. Since you're too ignorant of evolutionary theory to make an accurate characterization of it, you're hardly going to be able to make an accurate critique (as you've clearly demonstrated).
This has been brought up again and again -- the "ultimate reason" something happened is not within the realm of science -- the action of gravity and quantum mechanics could well happen because of God, but that question is beyond the bounds of science. Similarly, the mechanics of evolution could well happen because of God, but that question is also beyond the bounds of science.
That evolution happens in a certain way is well within the bounds of science, and can be well understood. As there is no need to appeal to an intelligent designer, evolutionary theory doesn't. Just like quantum mechanics doesn't appeal to an intelligent determiner, since there is no need. Its similar to how neither of these theories appeal to there being a giant bowling ball out in space far beyond where we could ever detect it -- because they don't need to. I am not equating God with a giant bowling ball, I am equating his presence in a *scientific theory* as equally useful with such a bowling ball.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Anybody here see the Nightline broadcast on this last night (8/10/05). Everyone who wants to smack Cal Thomas across the top of his smug little head with a stick, raise your hand.
Oh, definitely. And every time I see his op-ed pieces, as well.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
O Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, please extend your Noodly Appendage to our bretheren here who are having such a heated arguement and help them see the Light of Your Noodly Ways...
(I'm in for the pirate costumes, KQ)
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Just wanted to point out that neither ID or creationism reject natural selection. On the contrary, natural selection has been observed to take place and make changes in populations, no reasonable, educated person denies this.
What ID and creationism reject is that proof of microevolutionary changes in populations through natural selection (i.e., the change in population of dark colored moths vs. light colored moths when pollution caused the trees to turn darker) is proof that natural selection also caused macroevolution - the change from one type of organism to another.
Natural selection or selective breeding easily explains why we have hundreds of breeds of dogs descended from a common ancestor - wolves. It does not explain how wolves and man have a common ancestor in the ID or creationism view.
I don't have a problem personally with the schools teaching evolutionary theory, it's the most accepted theory for the origin of life in mainstream science, and that's cool. I'll handle religious teachings at home and at church.
However, I do think that flaws in evolutionary theory should be acknowledged, and students should be taught that the scientific world isn't solidly on one page when it comes to origins theories. There are neo-Dariwinians, there are supporters of punctuated equilibrium, etc. I don't see why irreducible complexity can't be taught - what's wrong with examining structures and talking about how some scientists don't believe those structures could have arisen in small, incremental evolutionary changes? That should only encourage students to think. You don't even have to say "Some people think irreducible complexity proves that there is a creator." You can just focus on the science and say "Scientists have questions about how evolution through mutation and natural selection could have resulted in this structure, so it's an area that is still under investigation." Isn't investigation and questioning things part of what science is about?
I just don't want the science textbooks to pretend that we have all the answers. We don't. We can't go back in time and observe evolution taking place. We can conjecture on what might have happend based on fossil records and the like, but we can't observe it happening and we can't repeat it, so I think it's teaching good science to teach kids that hey, we don't have all the answers. We have theories, we have ideas, and there is disagreement on those ideas, and people have alternate theories and that's okay because science is about discovery and trying to find the answers anyway.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: Tresopax - should Christian Science theories of medicine and healing be taught in medical schools?
I think medical students should at least be taught that these theories exist. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
We have the discussion in other threads regarding whether God exists or not and whether God's existence can be proved or disproved scientifically or unscientifically, so I'm not even going to touch on that here.
The real question here is what the schools should be teaching. Evolution is generally accepted so it makes sense that it is taught in the curriculum, but in the way that Belle said above.
Should alternatives be discussed? I think a complete education would discuss some of the more prominent/popular ideas, but without the use of God. The reason being that if you start discussing God, whose god do you discuss? You can't begin to discuss everyone's, so it's best just to leave God out of the discussion. The problem is that teachers are prohibited from even mentioning Intelligent Design. I don't think there is any harm in mentioning it as an alternative to Evolution, or even in some ways complementary to aspects of Evolution Theory.
I think it would be excellent to maybe offer extra credit for a paper on different alternatives or some other similar project. That will help the students to analyze the subject and develop critical thinking skills. And that's ultimately what the school system is supposed to do anyway.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I think medical students should at least be taught that these theories exist.
They usually are.
I think it's fine to mention "some people don't believe this is how this happened" and spend a day or two discussing alternatives. But equal time is ridiculous to me. When they have equal scientific evidence, they should get equal time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*applauds Belle*
That was marvelous! I agree. Science doesn't have all the answers, and shouldn't claim to.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Evolutionary theory doesn't say life evolved by chance, it says that the change in life over time is consistent with notions of natural selection of naturally occurring genetic variations
Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
quote:that these genetic variations occur due to chance events is something we have direct evidence for (mutations have been well studied), but that's a separate question
Observed mutations are not proof it occurs by chance. It is just as possible that God is doing it, influenced it, or did influence it at some point in the past. We can see that the mutations happen, but not why, and not that live evolved completely through them. You respond to this in advance by saying:
quote:This has been brought up again and again -- the "ultimate reason" something happened is not within the realm of science -- the action of gravity and quantum mechanics could well happen because of God, but that question is beyond the bounds of science.
Yes, but if the ultimate reason were never discussed in science class, this whole thing would be no issue. The problem is that it IS discussed because students want to know the ultimate reason for evolution. They know how it relates to religion, and thus want to know whether or not the theory contradictions religion. They want to know what it implies about their own origins. So even though science offers no ultimate reason, science teachers and textbooks do, or imply it, in order to answer that curiosity.
But more so, there is also the issue of the past. Science textbooks don't merely say evolution is consistent with life evolving through a certain process. They say life DID evolve through a certain process, implying that no intelligent designer was involved. This is also something science cannot say by its own method, without implying an ultimate cause.
quote:Since you're too ignorant of evolutionary theory to make an accurate characterization of it, you're hardly going to be able to make an accurate critique (as you've clearly demonstrated).
Speaking of unproven claims, how do you know what I'm ignorant of and what I'm not ignorant of? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
But that is what I was taught in jr. high and high school (it wasn't really brought up before that.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You were not taught that life evolved through chance mutations? I definitely was. And I'd say I probably understood it better than most did....
I'd be curious to know what an average high school student thinks evolution has proven, if someone ever did a study (which I'm guessing someone somewhere did!)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Our teachers were very careful to accurately explain the theory of evolution. "Life evolved through chance mutations" is a somewhat inaccurate contraction of the theory; we went into much more detail than that. We learned that the theory of evolution is that random genetic variations occur in every conception (we had already studied that), that over time or through catastrophic events, natural selection allows those with variations that allow them to survive better to thrive, and that species adapt and specify and divide through this process. Sure, it's a simplified version, but we were in 7th grade, for heaven's sake!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can tell what you've demonstrated ignorance of.
Flaws in the teaching of evolution are not reasons to start teaching more unscientific things in science class.
And I didn't say observed mutations were proof that they occcurred by chance, I said we had considerable evidence they occurred by chance; that is, we have observed large numbers of mutations and observed that they are consistent with a random variable satisfying certain characteristics. Your further ignorance of an area of science is demonstrated.
Where's your evidence that ID is as much science as evolution? You've fallen back on a completely different position that evolution is often taught incorrectly in schools, and seem to be implying that ID should be taught as well because its no more incorrect, but that's very different from your previous position that ID was just as much science as evolution was, and should thus be taught in science classes. Though I think its also quite silly.
Any science textbook that thinks it has all the answers on anything from evolution to why apples fall from trees is flawed, and there are disagreements about evolutionary theory that should be addressed. But ID does not remotely approach the requirements of a scientific theory and has no place in science class, and those disagreements should only be addressed in ways which proceed scientifically. It is reasonable to say that many structures seem very complex, and we do not yet have adequate stories for how they came to exist, but it should also be pointed out that we have very adequate stories for how many other complex structures came to exist (a classic example is the eye, which is extremely well understood evolutionarily despite the efforts of many creationists to claim it has irreducible complexity, a complaint easily dismissed by pointing out there are plenty of animals existing today with eyes of varying complexity that amount to simplified version of the more complex eyes we are familiar with).
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolutionary theory doesn't say life evolved by chance, it says that the change in life over time is consistent with notions of natural selection of naturally occurring genetic variations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
We should trust that you know what's being taught in every school in the country? Wow, such faith!
That first quote pretty accurately describes how evolution was taught in my school, and I understood it when it was covered in junior high, so technically before I was a freshmen or sophomore. In my methodist confirmation class (where I would have been 13 or so, I think) the subject came up and my immediate response was "Why couldn't good have created all the plants & animals through evolution? They don't have to be contradictory at all." Don't underestimate kids. They're often smarter than you think.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think we should do this with all of our studies.
"Gravity is the natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface. It is not known what ultimate purpose this force might serve, but some people believe it is the method used by an intelligent consciousness or consciousnesses to help keep things tidy."
There is, in fact, abolutely nothing that says a god or gods might not have whipped up gravity for his/her/their own purposes. What we can do is observe its functions and effects and make our deductions from those. And that's the part that gets taught in school.
Now, should teachers discuss different approaches to the study of life and encourage critical discussion from the students? Certainly. But it shouldn't be in the core curriculum and should not be included in any testing or evaluations.
[ August 11, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So Chris, should we start theorising on everything that doesn't have evidence against it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
The why belongs to philosophy class, comparative religious studies, humanities, the family, and religion.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I went to a Catholic high school so the type of conversation that is being discussed here definitely came up. We were learning about evolution and our teacher just stopped and talked a little bit about the controversy. He pointed out that believing in evolution didn't necessarily have to default the belief that there was a Creator who created the Universe. That many people who believe in a Creator believe that the process for creation could be evolution. And since many people believe it isn't possible to prove there is a God that this was left to one's personal interpretation.
Growing up in the Midwest and coming from fairly conservative, religious areas I can't imagine this conversation not happening, especially in a high school. If nothing else I'd imagine that it would be student initiated. If he hadn't stopped to comment I know someone would have brought up the question, if only to be difficult.
Talking to friends from the east coast I was amused/horrified to discover that my Catholic School in the "backwards" midwest was actually much much more progressive than their schools near places like New York City.
I guess my point is that I'm not opposed to the conversation happening in a school. Especially since people are going to hear about these ideas anyway. But I feel the focus should be on scientific process and methods. Thus as a teacher I'd focus 99% of the time on evolution.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
too much stuff to read argh, giving up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Did anyone else write the Kansass school-board to demand the teaching of GSM?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Where's your evidence that ID is as much science as evolution?
Every piece of evidence that supports evolution also supports Intelligent Design equally well. I'm referring to the fossils, the DNA evidence, the noted similarity of certain species, the observations of actual mutations going on, and so on and so forth - Each of these is equally consistent and not at all inconsistent with both Macroevolution and Intelligent Design, because both accept the fact that life evolved, only disagreeing on the method through which it evolved in the long run. Therefore, they are equally supported by science, since it has proven essentially impossible to observe directly how life evolved in the long run (at least, until we can get time travel).
Why then does science accept macroevolution rather than intelligent design? It's more or less because of Occam's Razor - which is a philosophical reason to pick one over another, not a scientific one.
quote:But ID does not remotely approach the requirements of a scientific theory and has no place in science class, and those disagreements should only be addressed in ways which proceed scientifically.
What requirement does it lack that macroevolution has?
And don't just say "evidence" again because, as I just said above, the same evidence applies equally well to both theories - yes, in exactly the same fashion as the evidence of my daily life experiences are equally consistent with the "I am in the Matrix" theory and the "This is real" theory.
(Incidently, to answer a much earlier question, I don't think we should teach the "We are in the Matrix" theory, because few if any believe it. While it would be nice to teach children every possible theory about everything, that's as impossible as teaching every fact of history. We should only teach them those theories that we think they will most need to know in their daily lives. I suspect almost everyone will be eventually confronted by some version of Intelligent Design, when it comes to even casual discussion of evolution. Thus, it is much more important to prepare kids to make decisions regarding this than it is to teach about the possibility that none of this is really real, which is admittedly definitely a possibility. You decide what class you want the theory of intelligent design to be discussed in, but it should be the same class where macroevolution is discussed, because they are theories of the same sort, equally scientific, and dealing with the same issue. To suggest or even imply that one is inherently more scientific than the other is sending the wrong message to students about the nature of science - a message that is far more threatening to science than Intelligent Design. After all, the reason why religious groups often villify and want to attack science is because they percieve science as being anti-religion by nature, when it is not.)
quote:We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
Yes, but what if there are two different how's, each equally consistent with all scientific evidence, both indistinguishable from the other through any known scientific experiment, whose difference is viewed as critical by much of the population? Should we teach only the one favored (for purely philosophical reasons) by the scientific community, and not the other?
The real trouble is the science only directly lets us test the what - what happens. To determine how what happens happens, we must make interpretations, and those are often based as much on logic and assumptions as they are on the original experimental evidence.
[ August 11, 2005, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Your Noodly Ways"
HA!!!! I seriously cracked up when i read that.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
delete!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So if ID uses fossil evidence as proof, as does evolution, does it go against biblical literalists who say the earth and universe is mearly 10-12 thousand years old?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Every piece of evidence that supports evolution also supports Intelligent Design equally well. I'm referring to the fossils, the DNA evidence, the noted similarity of certain species, the observations of actual mutations going on, and so on and so forth - Each of these is equally consistent and not at all inconsistent with both Macroevolution and Intelligent Design, because both accept the fact that life evolved, only disagreeing on the method through which it evolved in the long run. Therefore, they are equally supported by science, since it has proven essentially impossible to observe directly how life evolved in the long run (at least, until we can get time travel)."
Tres, does this evidence explicitly point to ID or does it take a belief in God to begin with to go there? Think about it this way. If we truly are doing science and we take a completely unbiased approach does the evidence necessarily point to ID? If not, which i think is correct, then we have to look at what it scientifically points too. Whether thats evolution or not, I dont really know. I am wholly uneducated when it comes to evolution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You keep asserting these notions to be equally scientific despite having demonstrated a complete lack of ability to even understand evolutionary theory at a very basic level, much less compare the notions. I know I shouldn't bother replying to the rest until you have remedied that appalling ignorance, but I will anyways.
Some further points: macroevolution and microevolution are loose classificatory terms, they are not different fields. Evolutionary theory is not divided into things that happen in small amounts and things that happen in big amounts; there are just things that happen, and when you get enough of them, those changes have large emergent properties such as species change. You can't just teach one, because they are not separable. Further ignorance.
And no, just because evidence does not contradict either notion does not mean it is equally supportive of each. Do they not teach elementary logic in your philosophy program?
For instance, that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being, even though it is not contradictory of mutations being caused by a supernatural being.
As for what requirement it lacks, I must assume you have been purposely ignoring people repeatedly telling you: all conclusions ID makes which evolution does not (though I'm not aware of any ID theorist who has bothered to make new conclusions which aren't of this class) are not testable. As such, those conclusions do not belong in a science class, as the conclusions of evolutionary theory are testable.
Testable implies one thing in particular: scientifically falsifiable. That is, it must be possible to judge "how good" a story is. I look forward to you showing me a single defensible calculation which tells me how probable an intelligent designer is. Scientific falsifiability is not absolute falsifiability, a concept I recall you had considerable trouble grasping the last time it was discussed, so don't bother saying "well, nothing is falsifiable" or the equivalent, because that's not the sort of falsifiability we're talking about, and its only your ignorance that leads you to make such statements.
And yes, I am not being particularly tolerant of your inability to understand the bare basics of scientific thought.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:You keep asserting these notions to be equally scientific despite having demonstrated a complete lack of ability to even understand evolutionary theory at a very basic level, much less compare the notions. I know I shouldn't bother replying to the rest until you have remedied that appalling ignorance, but I will anyways.
You really need to stop asserting that people (and by people I mean me) are ignorant of things. Firstly, you can't possibly know what I am and am not ignorant of - you don't even know much about me. Secondly, you aren't qualified to judge - having studied both evolution and the philosophy of science in advanced coursework, and having recieved a degree in the area, I am at least as qualified as you, if not more so. Thirdly, all qualifications aside, even if it does seem wrong to you and you think you have good reason to say so, you cannot tell whether that is because I am ignorant about the matter or whether it is because you are ignorant about the matter. Both are always possible. And fourthly, most importantly, even if you were completely correct in thinking I am ignorant and even if you had good reason to say so, the argument would still be unconvincing to anyone not already convinced - as all ad hominem attacks are - because it fails to show WHY I am wrong, and instead starts with an assumption that I am never going to accept without first proving the conclusion wrong anyway. In short, stop it... It's counterproductive to call people ignorant because they aren't immediately convinced by you.
Now, on to the real issue:
quote:And no, just because evidence does not contradict either notion does not mean it is equally supportive of each.
But in the case of macroevolution and ID, the evidence IS equally supportive of each because, not only does it contradict neither, but it ALSO offers nothing that would favor one or the other. For instance, your example doesn't really favor evolution....
quote:For instance, that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being, even though it is not contradictory of mutations being caused by a supernatural being.
This is just not true. Such a finding is exactly equally consistent with the conclusion that it is random as it is with the conclusion that a "supernatural" being is causing mutations that appear random. It only favors one over the other if you add other assumptions, like "supernatural beings wouldn't cause mutations to appear random when they aren't" or "we should accept the simplest possible explanation". But there is no agreement on those assumptions, and science itself cannot experiment to see which of those is best.
quote:all conclusions ID makes which evolution does not (though I'm not aware of any ID theorist who has bothered to make new conclusions which aren't of this class) are not testable. As such, those conclusions do not belong in a science class, as the conclusions of evolutionary theory are testable.
But again you are missing the reverse: All conclusions that evolution makes which ID does not are ALSO not testable. So either they and ID both belong in science class, or neither does.
quote:Tres, does this evidence explicitly point to ID or does it take a belief in God to begin with to go there? Think about it this way. If we truly are doing science and we take a completely unbiased approach does the evidence necessarily point to ID? If not, which i think is correct, then we have to look at what it scientifically points too.
If we are looking at it without any initial bias at all, it would not point to any explanation any more than any other. The scientific community concludes it is not God only because it is inclined to presume that things that can be modeled without the need of God, should be understood without God. And those who conclude it IS God probably do so because they either disagree with that philosophical assumption, or because they disagree that we can successfully model evolution without the need for God. (And we can't perfectly model how evolution could have worked yet, but that's not to say we never will be able to.) But all of these are initial biases - initial assumptions. You need those assumptions to draw extended conclusions about science, because science simply cannot tell us about the past or about why and how the observations we observe end up the way they are. Science just really allows us to test theories about what will happen.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
--Enigmatic
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"If we are looking at it without any initial bias at all, it would not point to any explanation any more than any other."
Sure it would. It would point to evolution. Evolution would be the theory that incorporates all the data and fits all our solid scientific evidence. My point, I guess, is that evolution is NOT the thing we come in wanting the evidence to fit into, but the theory we get from all the evidence. Thus, evolution NECESSARILY follows from the evidence, ID is only sufficient to explain the scenario. Of course, the problem with something being only sufficient to explain a theory is that it can do so with many other theories as well. Theories that we do not believe are true on any level!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you care to point out a single untestable conclusion of evolutinary theory, Tres? Please don't state silly things like "evolution is random" as you've stated before (in what you are telling me is not ignorance, despite that not being true of evolutionary theory).
edit to make a more explicit question based on my semi-snide implication. You've talked about evolutionary theory saying evolution is random. It does not. To what do you attribute this other than ignorance, if it is not ignorance?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And as for the random variable thing, no, it is not equally supportive in a scientific sense. The intentions of a superior being (as far as posited by that mini-notion) are not scientifically testable (since those intentions are not falsifiable, partly since the existence of the being is not falsifiable), but the theory that the mutations are the result of a random variable is scientifically falsifiable.
Equivalence in philosophy does not mean equivalence in science. This is in large part because science attempts to be useful, and thus adds constraints to itself that are not present in philosophy in light of that end.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
All hail the FSM!
What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole. Worse, they want to inflict their drivel on children, presented by authority figures as science fact.
Darwin said in an intro to his theory (I'm summerizing, not quoting here) this idea fits the evidence, but I'm not sure about it. But if it is true, then I think God started it.
Why does discovering God's tools disprove God?
Because religion requires its subjects to believe EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING that spews forth from its all knowing high priests, you know, the ones that can talk to God, like the pope, who is INFALLIBLE.
ARmen.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Stone Wolf, I think that might be a little unfair. Belle, for example, has said that she used to believe in evolution, then examined the evidence and decided that creationism was correct. I doubt that she's afraid to examine her beliefs.
Here's my problem with irreducible complexity/intelligent design: What's the definition of irreducibly complex? One clear definition would be: no parts can be removed without leaving that structure or system non-functional. However, that doesn't demonstrate that the system is designed, or can't have evolved. I'm not an expert, but here's how I think of it. Let's say that Microbe A and Microbe B are completely dependent on each other. Each of them lacks the ability to make certain proteins, and gets these proteins from the other organism. Separated, they will die. Irreducibly complex, right? Except, this system could theoretically have evolved with no input from anything intelligent. At one point, Microbe A and Microbe B were free-living. They started cooperating. Microbe A, no longer needing to produce certain proteins because it can get them from Microbe B, loses the genes for those proteins. Microbe B does the same. Now the system is irreducibly complex, but there's a plausible way for them to have evolved.
I'm a little averse to scientific claims that are subject to disproval by a just-so story. To demonstrate that the eye isn't irreducibly complex under the above definition, all a person has to do is come up with a plausible story of how the eye could have evolved--without claiming that things did happen that way. And then it's just "This is irreducibly complex!" "No, it's not!" and no actual research gets done.
Perhaps a more workable idea is a structure for which no precursors exist. If humans had an organ, for instance, that appeared without anything even remotely related in chimps, that would be decent evidence for intelligent design. Or if genes from one organism showed up in a completely different type of organism. An example of that would be a bacterium that has a human insulin gene. Evidence of intelligent design--in this case, by humans wanting a better source of insulin for diabetics.
Of course, that doesn't take into account means of gene transfer--viruses, for example.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Once again I'm going to Plug "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. I don't quite agree with some of the religious suppositions he makes, but I found it a very good, convincing read.
The whole kerfuffle leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for some reason. I mean, the worst ones from either side seem to be on a crusade to destroy the other. That is just not cool. I'm a believing Christian who had to take Biology for GE credit at a religious school and was taught that Evolution, in its complete form, was completely compatable with the belief that God created human beings in His image.
Professor Fairbanks (who I adore, even though I could barely follow that class) once demonstrated his thought processes in the situation where a scientific theory clashed with his belief. He drew a dot on the chalkboard and said, "this is what I know about science", then he drew another dot, saying "this is what I know about God." Then he drew a huge circle around the entire board, encompassing both dots, and said "this is a tiny fraction of what God knows. I can reconcile the theory and belief by having faith that they are not incompatable." I thought it was a cool lesson, and I hate science.
quote: We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
The why belongs to philosophy class, comparative religious studies, humanities, the family, and religion.
Thank you. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tresopax, what is there to teach?
Teach the elements of evolution and natural selection, and include a box to the side of the page that mentions the differences of opinion regarding the "why." Random chance vs intelligent purpose, and all the variances in between. That's it.
That would break out the "why" and provide more viewpoints while leaving the scientific portion alone.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure it would. It would point to evolution. Evolution would be the theory that incorporates all the data and fits all our solid scientific evidence.
One of MANY theories that fit all our solid scientific evidence. ID does too, and is rejected for other philosophical reasons (namely because God is an unexplainable complication), not scientific evidence.
quote:Would you care to point out a single untestable conclusion of evolutinary theory, Tres?
That the evolution of modern life was guided solely though the mechanics of "natural selection" and not by any intelligence. This is not testable because we cannot go back in time and observe the mechanics of how life actually did evolve over millions of years, but it is part of the model, and the one part of the model that ID disagrees with.
quote:You've talked about evolutionary theory saying evolution is random. It does not. To what do you attribute this other than ignorance, if it is not ignorance?
You just said "that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being." This is a way in which evolution is random, isn't it?
quote:The intentions of a superior being (as far as posited by that mini-notion) are not scientifically testable (since those intentions are not falsifiable, partly since the existence of the being is not falsifiable), but the theory that the mutations are the result of a random variable is scientifically falsifiable.
Yes, in the short run. We can test it happening in individual observations. That is why "microevolution" is testable.
Intelligent Design accepts this too, but would suggest that the randomness we see is guided by intelligence in the long run - that over time it follows a pattern of intelligent, rather than being truly random. Macroevolution implies otherwise. This part of the theory is untestable because we can't do a million year experiment on the past, and even if we could we would never have any control to compare it to.
This is actually similar to the reason why macroeconomics can never be a science, even though economists do use the scientific method to determine how economies function on a smaller, observable scale.
quote:Equivalence in philosophy does not mean equivalence in science. This is in large part because science attempts to be useful, and thus adds constraints to itself that are not present in philosophy in light of that end.
And philosophy doesn't attempt to be useful? Science is just philosophy using a certain method of reasoning and experimentation, which both improves the strength of its claims and limits the scope of things over which it can make such claims.
quote:Tresopax, what is there to teach?
Teach the elements of evolution and natural selection, and include a box to the side of the page that mentions the differences of opinion regarding the "why." Random chance vs intelligent purpose, and all the variances in between. That's it.
That would suffice, although a discussion would be nice. I'm inclined to believe classes should be interdisciplinary - and show how the subject material in each class relates to life in general. The best way to understand the science here and the debate in question is to question it analyticly in class - something I'm not certain students are taught to do that well. Giving it lip service in a box in the textbook would not be as helpful as requiring the students to think about it, and draw some conclusions about the assumptions that are used to frame scientific conclusions in the real world.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole.
I hope you do not feel this way about all religious people but only the subset of religious people that are willing to accept anything they are told, which can also be said for many non religious people.
[ August 12, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Stone_Wolf, while I think you are being rude and completely insensitive, I do want to point out that I agree with part of this statement:
quote:What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole. Worse, they want to inflict their drivel on children, presented by authority figures as science fact.
I'm a big believer in examining beliefs. That's why I'm so adamant that my children are taught doctrine, and not just superficial doctrine, but that they examine our beliefs deeply. If your beliefs are true, they'll stand up to that type of examination.
I'm certainly not afraid to examine what I believe and why I believe it. Yes, there are some things that come down to pure faith. But, I go back to the scripture which says we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind.
I don't think God wants blind followers that don't use the reason and intellect He blessed them with. All believers should examine their beliefs and hold them up against other theories unashamedly and unafraid. If what you believe is in fact the Truth, then you should have nothing to fear.
I'm not afraid to read comments by atheists or agnostics, I'm in fact very curious about why they feel the way they do. I'm not a person that reads only Christian creationism literature and decides that all evolution is false. I read things from both sides of the issue, and weigh them. I don't reject the teachings of every part of evolutionary science. I think science has done great good in helping us understand the world around us. I think God welcomes our scientific study of the world and universe He created. I disagree with some of the conclusions of some areas of science, but that doesn't invalidate the good that science does.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I didn't really want to get into the debate of Evolution vs. ID, but there was one thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet.
Evolution Theory in part relies on certain atmospheric and composition requirements of the earth millions of years ago. Conditions had to be a certain way in order for certain things to happen, otherwise the first amino acids may never have formed or combined, etc. The fact is though, we cannot know with a certainty what conditions were like millions of years ago. We can make some assumptions based on ground and ice samples that we are assuming have remained unaffected for millions of years, but that's all we have - assumptions.
I think it's important that evolution (as with many things) be taught with the acknowledgement that there are many assumptions that can never be proven and the theory is only as strong as those assumptions.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Irreducible Complexity, to me, is a perfect example of non-scientific thinking. It is profoundly un-scientific to reach a point where you say "Well, this is evidence of an intelligent creator because there is no way this could have happened by chance." Science is all about looking at the way thing are and finding out how they got this way. The minute you say "Because <insert neutered euphemism for God> made it that way", science has died and metaphysics has taken over.
God has always hidden in the margins of observation where science hasn't reached yet. Science is all about looking into those margins, making them smaller and smaller. I doubt science will ever discover God, but it will never disprove God either as long as there are magins in which he can hide. But the minute you bring God into the mix, you've come to the end of your science. You've taken all those unseen magins and labeled them God. We can then all go home and rest in the security of our philosophy.
Of course, the scientists will probably stick around for one last little peek. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Evolution Theory in part relies on certain atmospheric and composition requirements of the earth millions of years ago. Conditions had to be a certain way in order for certain things to happen, otherwise the first amino acids may never have formed or combined, etc. The fact is though, we cannot know with a certainty what conditions were like millions of years ago. We can make some assumptions based on ground and ice samples that we are assuming have remained unaffected for millions of years, but that's all we have - assumptions.
The weak anthropic principle applies: we wouldn't be here if those conditions had not existed.
Also, experiments that simulate these conditions on a small scale have produced precursors to life, though I'm not sure whether they've gotten as far as amino acids. It's been a year or two since I last heard about an experiment in this vein.
quote:All believers should examine their beliefs and hold them up against other theories unashamedly and unafraid.
Everybody should do that. I certainly did.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Okay from hanging out at the local Christian Fellowship club I've come up with thse:
A) The primary belief is that for at least one member evolution of a "fish sprouting wings" is utterly insane and impossible
B) While accepting that you can't disprove science, nevertheless using scientific means to determien that the universe is ~5000 years old throw the slowing down/speeding up of the decay rates in atoms which I think we've handled pretty well. in a previous thread.
C) IMHO, Christians who get scared at the possibility that the Earth could be millions-billions of years old are IMHO lacking in faith.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Also, experiments that simulate these conditions on a small scale have produced precursors to life, though I'm not sure whether they've gotten as far as amino acids. It's been a year or two since I last heard about an experiment in this vein.
I believe there are twenty or thirty different types of amino acids and scientists were able to simulate the creation of several of them. It's been a while since I've studied this so I could be completely wrong in my remebrance of these studies. Even if they haven't created them yet, I don't doubt that they will be able to find a way to create them in the future. So it's not that I doubt it could've happened that way, I just think it's one possible explanation that, like any other explanation for our existence, has limits based on assumptions about the past that we unfortunately are not able to go back and check.
I don't know if I really agree with the idea - "The weak anthropic principle applies: we wouldn't be here if those conditions had not existed."
It seems like circular reasoning. If those conditions had not existed, does that mean then that we must not exist? Of course not, if those conditions did not exist, it just means that we came into existence some other way. The fact that we exist shouldn't be used to support any theory on how we came into existence.
quote:the minute you bring God into the mix, you've come to the end of your science. You've taken all those unseen magins and labeled them God
I agree very much with this. Religion and Science do not necessarily have to contradict each other. You can use science to try to explain God or you can use God to try to explain certain aspects of science. But regardless of whether they agree or are used to try to explain the other, they are two separate fields of study based on different principles. It's similar to how we might use arecheology and philosophy. Both fields of study can be used to teach use things about ourselves, but they are still very different fields of study. Likewise with religion and science, they are separate and should be separated in the classroom as well.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
yet is has been mentioned that you used to "believe" in evolution, and then converted to creationism, so obviously, you aren't doing a very thurough examination of your beliefs, but rather a biased examination of what you want to believe. This might seem harsh, but anyone who choses to believe in creationism (or ID) instead of evolution (in light of ALL of the evidence and knowledge we have today) cannot consider themselves to be using the reason and intellect that "god" gave them. if god gave you rationality, then he clearly didn't want you to belive in him. furthermore, if god is rational, he shouldn't believe in himself either.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
(sorry kids - this was supposed to be a funny thread...)
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
yeah im sorry, im just trying to fit the persona.. it was hillarious
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This might seem harsh, but anyone who choses to believe in creationism (or ID) instead of evolution (in light of ALL of the evidence and knowledge we have today) cannot consider themselves to be using the reason and intellect that "god" gave them. if god gave you rationality, then he clearly didn't want you to belive in him. furthermore, if god is rational, he shouldn't believe in himself either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifier, I think you might want to consider that this board if full of people who don't agree with you, including the hosts. Do you really believe all of us that are believers are irrational and not capable of using reason and intellect?
Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It seems like circular reasoning. If those conditions had not existed, does that mean then that we must not exist? Of course not, if those conditions did not exist, it just means that we came into existence some other way. The fact that we exist shouldn't be used to support any theory on how we came into existence.
I originally had "in the absence of god" at the beginning of that sentence. Do you like it more if I put that back? "In the absence of god, we would not be here if those conditions had not existed."
It's not unlike my response when people say "oh, if the value of e had been slightly different, or if the average spacing of stars was a bit different, or [insert property of the universe here] were slightly different, we wouldn't be here, so obviously god designed the universe such that life as we know it could exist in it." Well, no, that doesn't follow.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
We had a ten-page thread on the subject recently, and nobody made that argument. In fact, one of the few points of common agreement (to the extent that there was any) was that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
We had a ten-page thread on the subject recently, and nobody made that argument. In fact, one of the few points of common agreement (to the extent that there was any) was that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
Well, add me to Belle's list. I believe in God for rational reasons, not "personal spiritual experiences."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
It depends on what you mean. Given two possible conclusions:
1.) God made the Universe according to his design.
2.) The universe was created and evolved by random chance.
Both rely on an scientifically unproveable premise. 1 can be made specific in a way that does not contradict scientific theories about the evolution of the universe and the creation and evolution of life.
quote:that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
As to this, I would bet that many, many people on this board also consider the personal experiences of others - both living and dead as evidence from which rational conclusions can be drawn. I'm not sure if you meant to exclude them or not with "personal spiritual experiences."
They also believe in God for other, rational reasons that are not subject to scientific proof.
I love science, but I don't like all the ways it is used. Science is not the only way we have of learning about the world; nor is the best means for learning the most important truths.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's why I included the caveat about trust.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I thought that referred to trusting whether your own experience was spiritual, wishful thinking, etc.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I meant to refer to both distinctly but wound up not doing so. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: It's not unlike my response when people say "oh, if the value of e had been slightly different, or if the average spacing of stars was a bit different, or [insert property of the universe here] were slightly different, we wouldn't be here, so obviously god designed the universe such that life as we know it could exist in it." Well, no, that doesn't follow. [/QB]
definitely agree with you here. I don't think the fact that universal laws of physics support life proves anything and shouldn't be used as a proof that God exists.
quote:"In the absence of god, we would not be here if those conditions had not existed."
I still think it kind of overlooks the possibility that the Theory of Evolution is correct, but that our understanding of its early stages is incorrect. Of course, based on my earlier assertion that past events are unprovable, then it doesn't matter that much as long as the conclusion is correct because the rest is unprovable anyway. Of course, once we get to the point of space travel and terraforming planets, then it might be important. Now I'm just kind of rambling. I think I'm done now.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. Yes, it definitely assumes that our understanding is correct.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
here's somthing I'm not so clear about. Evolution doesn't purport to know or describe how everyhing originaly started. It simply describes how things got to how they are today since that initial moment of creation or chance or whatever you think it is. So if you want to believe that it was God who started evolution, thats fine, or if you want to belive it was just random chance, thats fine too. The point is (and this was mentioned before) that the question of "why" is more appropriate for a philosophy, sociology, etc class than a science class. Evolution doesn't claim to have the "why" answer, where as ID theory does. And for this reason, it is not science, and should not be taught in a science class. No one is afraid of ID, we just do not feel as though it is appropriate to teach it in a science class, because that would be misleading to the students who don't know better. Evolution is a theory just like the sun rising is a theory. We know how the sun rises and what makes it rise, but if you go far back enough, there are still things we don't know (like where the initial particles came from that eventually formed the sun - or where the big bang came from that formed those particles). The same goes for evolution. It is a great theory that encapsulates everything we know about how species form and develop. But there is no theory of why who or what started evolution, it is just opinion. And that is what should be taught. Evolution is consistant with a belief in God, and a scientifically misleading theory like ID is unecessary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:That the evolution of modern life was guided solely though the mechanics of "natural selection" and not by any intelligence. This is not testable because we cannot go back in time and observe the mechanics of how life actually did evolve over millions of years, but it is part of the model, and the one part of the model that ID disagrees with.
Nope, big errors throughout here. Evolutionary theory does not state that life was solely guided through natural selection, not at all. It states that natural selection is an adequate, testable account for the progress of life, by which we mean (among other things) that our confidence in its accuracy may rise and fall depending upon newly revealed evidence and tests.
For instance, if someone comes up with something that natural selection does not appear to explain, this reduces the adequacy of the explanation, and the test of natural selection is if an adequate explanation through natural selection may be uncovered.
Its completely scientifically testable.
quote:You just said "that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being." This is a way in which evolution is random, isn't it?
Two things: first, if you are accepting my statement, you are giving up on your argument that all the evidence is equally supportive of ID and evolutionary theory. Thank you .
Also, the modelability of something being a random variable, which does support that something being random, does not mean a theory using that notion is saying the something is random. It is saying if we treat that notion as random we may a) test the adequacy of this randomness as an explanation and b) use this tested random model as a basis for further conclusions on other things. This is the difference between a scientific evidence and any sort of more general evidence -- scientific evidence supporting something is talking about how we can treat it within science, coming from scientific principles that have been long established to maintain the entire framework of science as testable and relatively closely tied to practicality.
quote:And philosophy doesn't attempt to be useful? Science is just philosophy using a certain method of reasoning and experimentation, which both improves the strength of its claims and limits the scope of things over which it can make such claims
Some philosophy attempts to be useful. More generally, though, much of philosophy attempts to generate thoughts which are of little use to anyone. Its still worth it because philosophy occasionally hits on something that's quite worthwhile.
However, the primary bit is I was largely using useful as a shorthand for what you expanded, as that is a sense useful can be meant in. And as you have noted, it doesn't just improve the strength of its claims, it changes the character of claims which can be made within the system. It is impossible to make a scientific claim that there is something which has neither testable existence nor testable effect (verifying in some small part its existence) on any testable phenomenon. Its just an eliminated possibility.
This is the fundamental problem with ID as science -- the existence of a "superior being" is given neither a larger nor smaller confidence value no matter what tests we run. Given that, it is not scientific, since it is untestable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Given that, it is not scientific, since it is untestable.
Ding! And this is precisely why, as a scientist, I think ID "theory" is nonsense.
Which is not to say that I don't discuss God in my science classroom. I certainly do. I believe that studying the world is a way to gain insight into the Mind of God.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
do you think that it is fair to include your ideology into a science class, where i assume you are teaching may impressionable youth? or do you also give creedence to other faiths, as well as ideologies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka teaches at a religious school, I believe.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
I see... so we're talking about a case of preaching to the converted?
I went to a catholic school until grade 9, and I never believed in God, but my science teachers also never told me that God was behind all science when I was younger, and maybe would have been more easily manipulated.. I don't know if I'd appreciate science teachers (even at religious schools) preaching their faiths.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see... so we're talking about a case of preaching to the converted?
No, we're talking about teaching young people to examine the world through many different lenses and to bring their different perspectives together into a consistent worldview, rather than attempt to compartmentalize the scope of human reason into neat little boxes.
quote:I don't know if I'd appreciate science teachers (even at religious schools) preaching their faiths.
Then clearly a religious school isn't for you.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I like that response, Dag, especially with the second part. I at first thought you were implying that ID in public schools was at attempt at this (which it may be, but I'm doubtful). I think it's laudable for a religious school to teach their philosophy as it relates to all subjects. I just think this is impractical in a public school science class. I'd have no problem having a humanities class in public school that tried to teach the formation of a comprehensive and consistent world view.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
If he is indeed teaching many different faiths' and ideologies' points of vue, then that is great. But if you are restricting your teaching to one faith in a science class, and using the power that science has to manipulate children into believing in your worldview (hence not letting them form their own), I have a problem with that.
Like i said, I went to a religious school (2 of them actually), and at this school they were clear to seperate science and faith, i.e. we had religion class, and science class as we got older (or science and religion period), as teachers were aware that is it wrong to use your influence as a teacher to preach your ideology to the kids. I also lived in Quebec (canada) where the majority of the teachers at my french school were seperatist, but they never talked about this ideology of theirs to us students, as many of us were not seperatists (or our parents more accurately) and they didn't want to use their authority as teachers to push their views. The same should go for religion.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I like that response, Dag, especially with the second part. I at first thought you were implying that ID in public schools was at attempt at this (which it may be, but I'm doubtful). I think it's laudable for a religious school to teach their philosophy as it relates to all subjects. I just think this is impractical in a public school science class. I'd have no problem having a humanities class in public school that tried to teach the formation of a comprehensive and consistent world view.
Not all children attending religious school are themselves religious. Most of the time it is their parents forcing them to go there, or because of location. With this in mind, why should they be manipulated into a certain set of beliefs?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Not all children attending religious school are themselves religious. Most of the time it is their parents forcing them to go there, or because of location. With this in mind, why should they be manipulated into a certain set of beliefs?
The same can be said about public schools. Not all children that attend public schools are atheists. I think the schools do a pretty good job the way it is, and from some of the responses here, it sounds like teachers are pretty fair and honest about what they are teaching. The experiences given on this thread also show that many people have changed their beliefs or are willing to change their beliefs. The important thing is that schools teach children to learn how to think themselves and not to rely on other people's opinions.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
exaclty. to not mention god in schools is not to teach an atheist perspective. an atheist perspective would be to teach that there is no god. so what i think is appropriate is for the type of thing you said to happen.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I believe that studying the world is a way to gain insight into the Mind of God.
Are you intentionally referencing Stephen Hawking here? If so, nicely done! Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of a parent to teach their children and to instill in them the values that will make them happy and successful. Why should a parent be expected to support the teaching of something they do not, themselves, believe? Or something they believe to be a lie?
I personally would not send my (theoretical) child to a religious school, or if one was the only option for a decent education I would make sure to temper the religious indoctrination as much as possible, much like religious parents are expected to do with philosophical issues they may disagree with in public school teachings. However, if a religious school chooses to teach science as it applies to a God-created universe, I have no problem with that as long as they are not receiving public funds to do so. If the actual science they are taught is actually sub-standard, well, that should become apparent when those children move into the public sector (either college or a job in a scientific field). If they can't perform in the scientific world, then I guess that school wouldn't be a good choice for scientifically minded religious people to send their children.
As for teaching children in general, there is almost nothing in this world that someone wouldn't classify as propaganda from one camp or another. Why should they be manipulated into accepting your beliefs above those of their parents?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: would like to volunteer to make pirate garb for anyone who wishes to help stem global warming but cannot afford the proper attire.
RAmen.
Really, kq? I want to look like a pirate wench, but a fairly well covered one so hubby doesn't try to keep me home.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I just think this is impractical in a public school science class. I'd have no problem having a humanities class in public school that tried to teach the formation of a comprehensive and consistent world view.
I agree. I do wish there was some kind of class that focused on the philosophical aspects of science. But it would be a philosophy class, not a science class.
quote:If he is indeed teaching many different faiths' and ideologies' points of vue, then that is great. But if you are restricting your teaching to one faith in a science class, and using the power that science has to manipulate children into believing in your worldview (hence not letting them form their own), I have a problem with that.
Fortunately, private schools don't have to organizae themselves according to what you or I have a problem with. I see nothing wrong with accurate science being taught in a religious school, and, in the same class, saying, "What are the implications of theory A for doctrine 1?"
quote:Not all children attending religious school are themselves religious. Most of the time it is their parents forcing them to go there, or because of location. With this in mind, why should they be manipulated into a certain set of beliefs?
Could you please drop the loaded language ("manipulation")? It's rather rude, especially since you haven't even tried to make a case to support your claim that it is manipulation.
Science is separate from religion. It does not mean that neither has anything to say relevant to the other. One of the advantages of private schools is that we don't have to exclude a major portion of most people's worldviews from discussion, because the school can be selected based on religion. This would not be feasible at this scale in a public school.
For science to be taught well, it has to be taught as science, not religion. But a good teacher, making the distinctions clear, will only improve their children's minds by encouraging cross-disciplinary discussion, especially when most of the students have more beliefs in common than not.
There's no equal time doctrine in a private school.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Does anyone really think that ID would, or would need to, get more class time than one single class period discussing that fact that these theories exist, and that none presented are conclusive, but since there is more science on evolution, we will teach what we know about it here?
They're not talking about having an entire curriculum based on ID, most likely a single lesson that mentioned that, "These are additional theories as to how it All Began".
That being said, I really don't see the Big Flopping Deal. ID proponents get their message across, and Big Bangers/Evolutionists still get their theories taught (and at far greater length).
Everybody is equally appeased and pissed off. It's the great American compromise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And would you see the Big Flopping Deal if the Flat-Earth types were allowed to get their message across? Also, I suggest you Google for 'WEdge document', it might interest you.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Given that, it is not scientific, since it is untestable.
Ding! And this is precisely why, as a scientist, I think ID "theory" is nonsense.
Which is not to say that I don't discuss God in my science classroom. I certainly do. I believe that studying the world is a way to gain insight into the Mind of God.
rivka,
For me, you have summed up this entire thread, and every argument I've heard about the issue, your wonderfully succinct post.
I would go further to say that any other view of the situation strikes me as inherently perverse. The extremes either ignore the possibility of God (for what can ultimately only BE personal reasons) or ascribe to God a penchant for deception.
I submit that science is as much a tool of expanding faith as scripture is. To me, sometimes, even moreso.
And I think that's amazing and marvelous.
Just as an aside, I would like to point out that Occam's Razor works well within the limits of the data. For the "ultimate questions" there are no ready criteria upon which to peg our judgements of "simplest" explanation. It's also worth pointing out that sometimes things are a lot more complex than we first imagined them to be.
I promote, wherever possible, TC Chamberlain's Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. That encourages us to reserve judgement and think of all the many ways that a result could be obtained and it discourages us from holding pet theories even in the face of contrary evidence.
Belle, I agree with all of your reasoning.
I disagree about macro-evolution, though. I think the differences between species are genetically so slight, and the phenotypes so radically altered by small genetic alterations, it's not a huge stretch at all to see how speciation could occur through natural selection acting on individuals.
Time and available niches are all that's needed.
And the explosions in new species formation recorded in the fossil evidence seem to line up dramatically well with availability of niches.
I look at it this way: 1) assume a reasonably constant rate of mutation 2) assume two states: normal times with all niches generally "filled" versus "crisis" times with a sudden expansion of the variety and availability of environmental niches.
Natural selection makes a very neat and easy to follow prediction: Some of the vast number of mutations that would've been fatal in normal times turn out to be beneficial in times of crisis. The result is that a few critters bread more viable offspring in the new setting than they would've in the old. They are now a bud on the evolutionary branch. That's all it takes. They grow ever more different from the parent species because while they go one way, the parent goes another. It's not all that difficult to get to a point where they can't interbreed and thus are technically new species.
If you start far enough back in time, it's not that hard to imagine lineages that come from a parental multicellular critter becoming anything: fish, fowl, mammal or reptile.
What I've heard you argue against in the past is a kind of macro evolution that isn't proposed in the Science of Evolution at all. No-one says that a cat became a bird. We're not looking at modern species and saying "let's turn this into that."
While that might be possible or even likely under the right conditions, what we're really saying is that a proto-vertebrate species split millions of years ago to become mammals and birds and from those lines arose modern cats and modern birds.
Macroevolution and microevolution are exactly the same and, really, believing in one is believing in the other, and disbelieving one is disbelieving the other. The mechanism doesn't stop functioning just because the perceived gap is larger. It just takes more time (which we've had a lot of in the past) and a knowledge of the starting point and conditions along the way.
Anyway, I think a situation in which microevolution is true, but macroevolution isn't is about the least likely scenario of all that have been discussed.
(And yes, I know there are scientists who believe this...I just think they are dead wrong and have misconstrued either the timeframes, the precursors, and/or the mechanisms involved.)
However, you are right to say that evidence of microevolution does not prove the truth of macroevolution. It does, however, provide support for the mechanism being one that COULD do the job and the alternatives have a much harder time with the body of evidence.
I think mitochondrial DNA are about as good an example of irreducable a complexity as one could hope for in biological entities. And they are a gold-mine for estimating the relative "distances" between species (in terms of ticks of the evolutionary "clock" or number of branchings between them on the bush of life). The actual time estimates may be off, but the relative estimates (this happened before that) are probably pretty accurate. So...this wonderful, irreducibly complex thing is really a roadmap of the prior history and relationships among species.
How cool is that?!
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I didn't read through the entire thread, but has anyone brought up water mammals and their place in the evolutionary line?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, what do you mean? Nobody has brought them up, but they aren't particularly relevant except as yet another example of a situation well explained by evolutionary theory.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: do you think that it is fair to include your ideology into a science class, where i assume you are teaching may impressionable youth? or do you also give credence to other faiths, as well as ideologies?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Rivka teaches at a religious school, I believe.
Dags is correct. And the year that I taught in a non-religious school, I only mentioned my religious beliefs when I was directly questioned about them -- and usually not on class time.
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: I see... so we're talking about a case of preaching to the converted?
Who's preaching? Most of the time it's brief, and often fairly flippant. My students and I share a religious background (for the most part) and speak a common language. (However, while I believe God-guided evolution is the most likely scenario, most of them come from what KoM might refer to as young-earth-creationist homes, and that is the official party line at the school. Therefore, I am careful when discussing evolution to use such phrases as "many scientists believe.")
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, we're talking about teaching young people to examine the world through many different lenses and to bring their different perspectives together into a consistent worldview . . . Then clearly a religious school isn't for you.
Agreed, on both points.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think it's laudable for a religious school to teach their philosophy as it relates to all subjects. I just think this is impractical in a public school science class. I'd have no problem having a humanities class in public school that tried to teach the formation of a comprehensive and consistent world view.
I agree with that too.
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: If he is indeed teaching many different faiths' and ideologies' points of vue, then that is great. But if you are restricting your teaching to one faith in a science class, and using the power that science has to manipulate children into believing in your worldview (hence not letting them form their own), I have a problem with that.
Firstly, she. Second of all, excuse me? These are intelligent high school students, and for the most part quite willing to argue with anything they disagree with. I am far more likely to get grief from them when I "preach" scientific "doctrine" than anything else. That's when it's really useful to have a similar religious background -- because a fair number of their objections can be answered with statements from the Torah (especially if you include the Talmud).
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: Not all children attending religious school are themselves religious. Most of the time it is their parents forcing them to go there, or because of location. With this in mind, why should they be manipulated into a certain set of beliefs?
Any student attending our school (with a rigid and rigorous dress code, and various other rules which are enforced) is highly unlikely to be doing so unless they want to be there. There are other options in town for those who are less religious. And I really object to your characterization of my teaching methods as manipulation.
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I believe that studying the world is a way to gain insight into the Mind of God.
Are you intentionally referencing Stephen Hawking here? If so, nicely done!
Nope, sorry. I'm actually not much of a Hawking fan . . .
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: rivka,
For me, you have summed up this entire thread, and every argument I've heard about the issue, your wonderfully succinct post.
I would go further to say that any other view of the situation strikes me as inherently perverse. The extremes either ignore the possibility of God (for what can ultimately only BE personal reasons) or ascribe to God a penchant for deception.
I submit that science is as much a tool of expanding faith as scripture is. To me, sometimes, even moreso.
And I think that's amazing and marvelous.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
KoM would likely say cretinist, not creationist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Since I find that term highly offensive, I didn't. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Truth hurts. And stings.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Uh, what do you mean? Nobody has brought them up, but they aren't particularly relevant except as yet another example of a situation well explained by evolutionary theory.
Well, it never really made much sense to me. Did animals go onto land and then some mammals went back into the water, or did some fish just evolve fully developed air-breathing systems in one generation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. The former. There is a very fine pathway between gills and lungs, you know.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Not all children attending religious school are themselves religious. Most of the time it is their parents forcing them to go there, or because of location. With this in mind, why should they be manipulated into a certain set of beliefs?
Then your problem is with the parents, not rivka or her school.
If the kids object to being "manipulated" by their education, they only have their parents to blame.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. The former. There is a very fine pathway between gills and lungs, you know.
But why bother going back into the water?
Did they have to devolve their legs, or did they just never have them? Or did they have some anti-amphibian stage where instead of getting legs and losing fins, they were getting fins and losing legs?
Again, why? Was it better to go to land in the first place? Was it better to go back to the water again? Why didn't everyone go back to the water?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh dear, I feel an "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" argument coming on. Animals went back into the water because there was room for them, as there hadn't been for their ancestors sixty million years earlier. Conditions do change, you know. And not everybody went back into the water, because some were doing just fine on land. Species don't plan out these things, each individual beastie just does whatever it feels like. As for the legs, yes, they re-evolved into fins. About 1% of whales are still born with vestigial legs, actually.
Also, you don't have to assume that it was actually better to go back to the water. It's entirely possible that the cousin-line that stayed on land did better in the end. So what? Evolution doesn't find the best path, it finds any path that works.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
To be brutally honest, I was being particularly annoying with my questions because, in reality, I've never gotten a straight and honest answer from anyone on that question. (Amazingly enough, I would also have accepted "We just don't know that" as well... I tend to answer a lot of God questions like that)
In case it wasn't glaringly obvious, I'm a Creationist. As for Young Earth v. Evolution, I try my best not to touch that argument. Whether the 7 days in Genesis are literal days or poetic (or both), God is still God.
Edit: As long as you mention "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", here's another question: were there missing links, and where are they?
(I like asking tough questions) This isn't really evolution-related, but can you explain fossil graveyards and mass deposits of fossil fuels? (They may not be mass deposits any more, with gas creeping toward $3/gallon)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And was this sufficiently straight and honest?
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Yes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, yes, there were missing links, and we've dug up a lot of 'em. Australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus. The thing is, every time the scientists dig up a new species, B, intermediate between two others A and C, two things happen :
a) That link isn't missing anymore. b) The creationists begin screaming for links between A and B, and between B and C.
As for fossil graveyards and fossil fuels, I don't know what the question is, so I can't answer it. Could you explain what you see as the problem?
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Well, they're there, and there's not much to explain why. How can a ridiculous variety of animals from all kinds of places and climates come together and fossilize in the same area multiple times?
And fossil fuels aren't exactly an every-day thing. It takes a lot of organic material and a lot of pressure, and there are some pretty huge deposits of fossil fuels.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's really no such thing as a "missing link" -- evolutionary theory combined with our knowledge of fossilization predicts we won't be able to find examples of every transitional form, so that we don't find something isn't particularly astonishing, nor required that we find the things in order for evolutionary theory to provide a reasonable account -- but its important to understand that transitional form is just a term we use for forms we don't see much of that seem to come between the actually rather arbitrary groupings of species (the notion of a species itself being a very hazy and arbitrary thing) we've made.
That is, its perfectly reasonable to view literally every species ever in existence as a transitional form -- while populations may have periods of comparable genetic stability, they'll almost certainly be in circumstances they will adapt differently to at some point.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Vid: as for the first, they don't, really. Do you have links to any examples of what you're alleging? Some environments are much more conducive to fossilization that others -- for instance, when we dig where there were ancient tar pits, we find lots of fossils, something perfectly well explained by tar tending to trap and kill animals in ways conducive to eventual fossilization. Nothing mysterious at all. Similarly for certain swamplike environments (which nowadays are more commonly desert-like).
As for fossil fuels, see: billions of years of plants. That's a lot of organic biomatter, more than you seem to be conceiving of. Imagine all the plants covering the earth -- times several hundred million (depending on what the average age of a plant by volume is).
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
That makes a lot of sense. Thank you
But at the same time, you have to admit that there's just as good a possibility of them not being there. I'll explain: God created everything in perfect working order, and instead of waiting 800 million bajillion years for everything to work itself out, He created it as it would be 10,000 years ago. Either that or he did create it 800 million bajillion years ago, and gave us the Genesis account for purely poetic and educational reasons. That said, I think the point is moot.
That is, it all comes down to faith. What we know: everything is in perfect working order right now. What we choose to believe: either it is all random, or it was call put into place by God. (Or aliens planted human life on earth, but I don't think that one would get many votes)
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I'm at work, so I can't go into deep research, but the first site I found from searching "fossil graveyards" on Google was pretty good. Obviously, any site on Creation is going to be biased against Evolution; but likewise, any site on Evolution is going to be biased against Creation. (See my last post on faith )
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perfect working order, hah; have you looked at the 'design' of the human eye, or brain, lately? A more kludged-up abortion it is hard to conceive of, at least if it's going to actually work.
I see fugu beat me to the fossil graveyards, perhaps because the term is apparently mainly used by creationists - which rather suggests to me that there ain't no such animal, at least in the form you suggest with 'a ridiculous variety'. Talkorigins has this as a claim. Moreover, if you're going to assert rapid burial, you're going to have to explain why fossils in most places occur in layers sorted by age.
Also, evolution is anything but random; only mutations are random.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But at the same time, you have to admit that there's just as good a possibility of them not being there. I'll explain: God created everything in perfect working order, and instead of waiting 800 million bajillion years for everything to work itself out, He created it as it would be 10,000 years ago.
Of what value is this belief to any discussion of evolution? It's completely untestable. And how is the possibility "just as good" when only one of the two views has supporting evidence?
So no, I don't have to admit anything of the kind, because I don't have to admit that god "gave us the Genesis account." Since I don't believe in god, I should hope I'm allowed to discuss evolution without having to accept Genesis as anything remotely resembling evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As for your site, dear me, what a strawman. Of course they find mammals and dinosaurs together; mammals evolved from dinosaurs, and only became dominant after the comet, or whatever it was, wiped out the big beasties that were taking up all the big-animal niches. Here's the guy who actually found these things :
quote:Q: So he found mammals as well?
A: Yes. Mammals were part of the dramatic finds that the Andrews expedition uncovered. They weren't the biggest things; a lot of these mammals are little, nugget-sized creatures, but they were very, very important to science, because at that time we knew virtually nothing about mammals that old -- mammals so old that they lived alongside of the dinosaurs, nearly 100 million years ago.
(...)
But you'd have to say that during the Mesozoic [about 120-140 million years ago], many of these mammals seemed to be rather inauspicious creatures. They were all rather small, somewhat shrew- or mouselike, somewhat limited in their range of habits.
Full interview here. Nice quote mining there; to anyone not acquainted with the facts of the case, it looks very like people have been finding elks and T Rex intermingled. That is really a quite dishonest argument. For the rest of the page, fugu answered it already, so I won't.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I don't know if you noticed the "Intelligent Design" in the title, but I figured I'd do my best to represent that half of the discussion.
And would you please give me the supporting evidence you have of a totally random beginning to existence?
KoM: Are you seriously trying to discredit the design of the eye and brain? You might as well try to discredit the design of the atom. The point I was making there was that there is still existence.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Also, evolution is anything but random; only mutations are random.
Evolution isn't random? I'm not going to jump to conclusions, I'm just going to point out some thesaurus antonyms of random: ordered, systematic, designed, intended, intentional, planned, premeditated. I don't know if those are words you want to be throwing around when we're discussing intelligent design Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You've been discussing the evidence with KoM and fugu. But where's the evidence of god's hand in all of this? It isn't there. Evidence that evolution occurred on earth is not also evidence of intelligent design. Evidence of intelligent design would be roughly analogous to us finding god's signature somewhere in the universe, sort of like the circle in pi in Carl Sagan's Contact.
I mean, it's easy to say "god could have made it to look this way," and that we shouldn't ask why god would bother to do such a thing because we can't understand god's motivation for doing things, but it doesn't get us anywhere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was using random in the mathematical sense of 'truly un-patterned, unpredictable even in principle.'
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Twinky, in one of my earlier posts I mentioned I avoid the YE/OE argument for that exact reason: people assume that evolution disproves God. It doesn't. The reason God didn't make creation glaringly obvious that it was from Him and not completely random is the same reason he doesn't wake us all up every day by yelling, "Hey! I'm here! I exist! Now believe in me!" It takes faith. If you're going to put your faith in science alone, go ahead. Just don't try to write me off as a total moron for putting my faith in science and God.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I was using random in the mathematical sense of 'truly un-patterned, unpredictable even in principle.'
I gotcha. I'll avoid the "so something must have caused a pattern... nature caused the pattern... something must have caused nature to put the patten in place..." argument that would stem from there Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:people assume that evolution disproves God.
I don't think it does. Evolution merely disproves the literal interpretation of the Bible, which is very different from disproving the existence of God.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: Evolution merely disproves the literal interpretation of the Bible, which is very different from disproving the existence of God.
I'll drink to that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not only have I not accused you of being a moron, I have also not said that god's existence is subject to proof or disproof by evolutionary theory. I am also not putting my "faith" in science; rather, I lack the faith required to believe in god.
What I'm not getting about your argument is why anyone would arrive at the conclusion that god exists based solely on the kind of evidence that's been discussed in this thread. Why bring god into it at all? This does not imply that god does not exist; I'm saying that intelligent design has no scientific merit because it doesn't add anything useful to the discussion of the evidence. Lots of people on this thread have already pointed out that science is concerned with "how," not "why." God is a "why." You say "you have to admit it's just as likely that god did it..." and of course it's certainly possible that god did indeed do it, but like I've been saying, it doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion because it isn't testable.
In fact, we aren't saying very different things, since you've pointed out multiple times that belief in god requires a leap of faith. Faith is not under the purview of science, so why should god be?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Vid,
Your statements are disingenous. You presuppose "design" for the eye, and for the atom, etc. I believe that KoM was being facetious with his talk of 'design' for those things.
I could also tell you all about the totally crappy design of the human spine, having had some serious back surgery a few years ago, and still being not quite right.
quote:I don't know if you noticed the "Intelligent Design" in the title, but I figured I'd do my best to represent that half of the discussion.
And would you please give me the supporting evidence you have of a totally random beginning to existence?
First, please feel free to provide any supporting evidence to the "Intelligent Design" premise.
As to the total randomness of the beginning of existence...which existence do you mean? Life, or the universe? Re. "the universe," we're working on it. Until we know for sure, though, I think we'll attribute it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his Noodly Appendages).
As to "life," may I point you to the eight or so other planets, plus the dozens of moons and tens of thousands of asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects with no life on them whatsoever. We just got lucky on this little ball of earth and water right here.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I'd recommend starting a new thread about just evolution, then, before you get any more people stumbling in trying to make and points regarding intelligent design.
No, you haven't explicitely accused me of being a moron, but your comments have been extremely condescending. Don't bother trying to defend yourself or your comments, I'll stop bothering you guys in your discussion.
And yes, you are very much so putting your faith in science. Everyone has faith in something. I just consider faith in God a little more wisely placed Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Really? Tell me then, just how do you think my 'faith' manifests itself? Certainly I believe evolution to be an unguided process; much as I believe water is wet. In neither case does the belief have an impact on my life or my morals.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
You've been arguing with me in a pretty convicted manner. That sounds like a manifestation of your faith to me. I could get really general and point out that you have faith that gravity will work, even though you have no idea why.
Since you brought it up, what does impact your life and morals?
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
On the Young Earth v. Old Earth subject I just want to say that the appearance of age arguement makes God a liar.
Little peice of completely useless information: Darwin only considered the possibility of there being no God when he found that so many species had gone extinct; the idea that God would do something so atrocious as let a species die out simply boggled his brain. The theory of evolution didn't prove to Charles that there wasn't a God until after he had decided to not believe in Him.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
KoM is it worth getting into this topic?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
For me, faith means "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Science does not require faith. The scientific method is based on providing logical proofs and examining material evidence.
This is not to say, however, that science or logic is superior to faith.
Maybe when you talk about having "faith" in science, you are talking about people who believe that science can solve ALL our problems and explain EVERYTHING in the universe, including questions like why we exist.
For those people, yeah, their belief in science is an act of faith.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celebrindal: On the Young Earth v. Old Earth subject I just want to say that the appearance of age arguement makes God a liar.
Little peice of completely useless information: Darwin only considered the possibility of there being no God when he found that so many species had gone extinct; the idea that God would do something so atrocious as let a species die out simply boggled his brain. The theory of evolution didn't prove to Charles that there wasn't a God until after he had decided to not believe in Him.
It's a good thing Darwin was such a master theologian.
Without death, there is no life.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would hope people were pretty convicted when arguing in support of carefully developed theories involving thousands of very intelligent people spending millions of man-hours researching them, using continuously, rigorously tested methodologies with strong philosophical reasons for their utilization.
If someone can't argue stridently for that sort of thing, what's the point in trying to have a viewpoint based on, y'know, actual evidence?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you think I'm putting "faith" in science, I really think you should reconsider which of us is condescending to the other. It's perfectly valid to state that I think intelligent design has no scientific merit, and to give my reasons for thinking so, in a thread where much of the discussion has been about what scientific merit intelligent design might have. I've said nothing about the merits of believing in god.
Beren's first three lines in his 9:46 PM post sum it up very well.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If someone can't argue stridently for that sort of thing, what's the point in trying to have a viewpoint based on, y'know, actual evidence?
I'd only change that sentence by adding one word: probably actual evidence. Or two words: most likely actual evidence. The reason I point it out is because people have believed a lot of things over the years. I think it's funny how easily we prove ourselves wrong Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
Faith is synonymous with belief, the only exception being that faith has religious connotations. Faith does not have to mean belief in God, just belief.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's a question of context:
quote:faith n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
I assumed Vid was using the "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" definition rather than the "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" definition from the context in which he used it.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I disagree. Beliefs are based either in faith or in fact. I believe a basketball is larger than a hockey puck because, well, it is. I believe God created time, matter, and space because of my faith.
I believe in a lot of things in science because of pure fact. At the same time, people believed that they could make flies out of mud, dung, and straw because they thought their findings were based in fact.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
One person trying to respond to two or three isn't fun sometimes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but to compare that to real science, with the full panoply of peer review and repeatable experiment, is rather dis-ingenous. And dishonest.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:The reason I point it out is because people have believed a lot of things over the years. I think it's funny how easily we prove ourselves wrong
When scientists discover new evidence and amend their theories accordingly, it's an example of the scientific method's triumph and not its failure.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: When scientists discover new evidence and amend their theories accordingly, it's an example of the scientific method's triumph and not its failure.
I agree. But it's a constantly ongoing process. That's why there are so many theories.
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
"When scientists discover new evidence and amend their theories accordingly, it's an example of the scientific method's triumph and not its failure."
Funny story: A while back, a group of scientists did a study on seawater and ran experiments to predict how many years ago streams and rivers would have started running into the ocean to reach the salinization that it is today. The equasions they were working with gave them an answer that wasn't long enough to support the scientific theory they believed, so they scrapped the whole project and never published it. Probably irrelevant and there might have been other factors that threw off the answer anyway so it doesn't really matter, but hey! that's integrity for ya!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, it is. If your model that you use to explain your data has just proved that the Moon is made of green cheese, it is entirely legitimate to scrap the model and not publish the result. It isn't legitimate to scrap the data, of course, but I'm willing to bet no such thing was done.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
i heard something similar where a girl did some experiments with Carbon dating only to have 3 extremely wild results so the teach said "just go with the one that suits your experiment" supposedly my acaintance says that's a reason why carbon dating is unreliable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Really, Celebrindal, how fascinating. Would you care to cite a source for that? You know, just one?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
ok your not a moron for both believing in god and science, nevertheless soem of the religious studetns at my college or one of them anyway, said that evolution was originally created by some french guy to disprove god with that intent. I'm not sure of this since I've never heard of this guy except in passing by Isaac Asimov when talking about Judo Arguements about Evolution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gee, Sid, that was a really strongly supported argument, fantastically well-thought-out, and with alternative spelling at that! You must have put a lot of work into that post. We're all very impressed, bravo! 'Some French guy', wow, and even citing of sources!
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Yeah, I think I'd probably subscribe to the theory that aliens planted life on earth before I'd subscribe to some of the theories I hear in religious circles
I had to restrain myself in a discussion with my wife's grandfather. He was explaining that we don't need to worry about oil running out because God will provide more out of the ground. I changed the subject pretty quickly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sid: for many things, carbon dating does not work, for very well understood reasons. However, for the things its intended to work with it (mysteriously) agrees with all the other ways science has come up with to measure age (in the same ranges)!
Clearly every single one of those methods is wrong, and not only wrong but wrong in the same way.
And a bit more on the salt in the oceans thing: this is an incredibly common error among creationists, assuming that because something happens at a certain rate it must have always happened at a certain rate, and the effects must not have been reduced by other events.
For instance, moon dust. Creationists often cite a rate of accumulation for moon dust (which is also often easily refuted), but even given a particular rate for moon dust accumulation . . . its not necessarily constant; impacts on the moon may well disrupt the accumulation of moon dust; moon dust has a lot of weight, and as there's more and more will compact into itself forming rock; et cetera.
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
This was a matter of dates, though, not green cheese. instead of getting a gazzillion years like they wanted to(to prove that evolution had enough time to work it's stuff on this planet) they got something like 2.5 billion years wich to popular belief at the time, wasn't long enough. The acceptable length of time in which evolution could occure to the current extent may have changed with popular opinion. And you may be right about it never happening, but it's not an isolated story. I hear things all the time about creationists and evolutionists covering up evidence that they believe will disprove their belief system. The record for scientific integrity might, if left out on the kitchen table, be taken for a child's rendering of modern art.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be fair, the upper end of the creationists (which is a bit like talking about the upper edge of pond scum, but anyway) have recognised that moon dust is a bad argument, and given up on it. AiG has a page on it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wow, Celebrindal, 'you hear things'? That's really strong evidence that scientists are dishonest, that is. I can see I'll just have to give up my chosen career and become a hermit for the great glory of god; how can I possibly work with such a gallery of rogues and scoundrels?
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: (which is a bit like talking about the upper edge of pond scum, but anyway)
Wow. Please tell me this isn't gonna devolve into a nice little Groupthink session.
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
KoM, it doesn't make me want to listen to your arguements when all I can hear is your disdain.
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
And I'm not really advocating the "great glory of god". I believe in ID, not necessarily the Christian God.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"The record for scientific integrity might, if left out on the kitchen table, be taken for a child's rendering of modern art."
Well, we all know scientists are only in it for the fame and the money. Those greedy bastards.
KoM, come on, I know you're not feeling well but let's not get into that kind of argument. (I hope you feel better, btw.) Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:, the upper end of the creationists (which is a bit like talking about the upper edge of pond scum, but anyway)
Well, it's not just cream that rises to the top. Pond scum does too. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I just thought I'd add some fuel to keep this fire going, and also because I feel bad that Vid is outnumbered here. If you've read my other posts, then you realize that I have the utmost respect for science.
One third of scientists admit to research violations—More than a third of US scientists, in a survey of thousands, admitted to violating some of the bedrock rules of scientific research, according to a report by a team of Minnesota researchers. Less than 1.5% admitted to outright falsification or plagiarism. But 15.5% said they had changed the design, methods, or results in response to pressure from funding sources, and 12.5 admitted overlooking other's use of flawed data. In addition, 7% admitted ignoring "minor" rules of requirements regarding the use of human subjects. This is the first survey of its kind, so it is not known whether the conduct is growing more common or not (Nature 2005;435: 718-9). Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: Well, we all know scientists are only in it for the fame and the money. Those greedy bastards.
Same with those Christian pastors. Man, do they rake in the cash.
(Would it be inappropriate right now to make a joke that God is punishing KoM with his sickness?)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Nope, big errors throughout here. Evolutionary theory does not state that life was solely guided through natural selection, not at all. It states that natural selection is an adequate, testable account for the progress of life, by which we mean (among other things) that our confidence in its accuracy may rise and fall depending upon newly revealed evidence and tests.
For instance, if someone comes up with something that natural selection does not appear to explain, this reduces the adequacy of the explanation, and the test of natural selection is if an adequate explanation through natural selection may be uncovered.
Its completely scientifically testable.
What experiment could completely falsify macroevolution? I can think of some that would "reduce the adequacy" of the theory, but I can do the same thing for intelligent design - unnecessary evolutionary dead ends would be one example.
Additionally, if it is true that macroevolution is testable, then we have an interesting problem. After all, if evolution is completely scientifically testable, that means it could be proven wrong. If it were proven wrong, what would science then turn to in order to explain life? It could not turn to intelligent design if, as you say, it is inherently unscientific. So, what would it say? What theory would it turn to?
quote:For me, faith means "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Science does not require faith. The scientific method is based on providing logical proofs and examining material evidence.
This is somewhat mistaken, under your definition of faith. You are right in that science can propose possible explanations without requiring any faith, and it can reject false explanations without requiring much in terms of faith. However, if you are going to go beyond that and actually ACCEPT leading scientific theories as beliefs (which almost everyone does), then you are making a leap of faith - because science can't show anything is true through logic or material evidence. It can only show what is false.
For instance, it doesn't take faith to accept that the theory of gravity could be true based on what science has shown. However, in order to conclude that it actually IS true, you need to make a leap of faith.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: I just thought I'd add some fuel to keep this fire going, and also because I feel bad that Vid is outnumbered here. If you've read my other posts, then you realize that I have the utmost respect for science.
One third of scientists admit to research violations—More than a third of US scientists, in a survey of thousands, admitted to violating some of the bedrock rules of scientific research, according to a report by a team of Minnesota researchers. Less than 1.5% admitted to outright falsification or plagiarism. But 15.5% said they had changed the design, methods, or results in response to pressure from funding sources, and 12.5 admitted overlooking other's use of flawed data. In addition, 7% admitted ignoring "minor" rules of requirements regarding the use of human subjects. This is the first survey of its kind, so it is not known whether the conduct is growing more common or not (Nature 2005;435: 718-9).
Thanks, camus. Don't worry, I've got a TON of respect for scientists (my high school chem and physics classes are much to thank for that).
Do you think that the Minnesota researchers committed any research violations in this study? :-p
Edit: I just realized that I sound really sarcastic in my sentence regarding my respect for scientists. But trust me, I do respect them very much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:(Would it be inappropriate right now to make a joke that God is punishing KoM with his sickness?)
Yes.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:However, if you are going to go beyond that and actually ACCEPT leading scientific theories as beliefs (which almost everyone does),
That's interesting Tres. What do you mean by "accept ... as beliefs"?
I don't consider evolution as some sort of absolute truth of the universe. When I say I believe in evolution, I mean I believe in the scientific methods used to come up with the theory. I believe it is the best theory we have with the evidence we've accumulated. If new evidence shows up to support other theories, I will be happy to consider them.
quote:For instance, it doesn't take faith to accept that the theory of gravity could be true based on what science has shown. However, in order to conclude that it actually IS true, you need to make a leap of faith.
Well, if you leapt off a cliff and died, would you believe in gravity then? Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
He's referencing the fact that we all know gravity works, but nobody knows why Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
leap of faith...leaping off a cliff... Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Indiana Jones, anyone?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Then why did God let me fall off that cliff?
Someone stated earlier that science deals with the hows and religion/philosophy deals with the whys. Wise words. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
The Devil tempted Jesus to hurl himself off a clif based on the belief that the angels would save him. Jesus' response was that God is not one to be tested...not that that has anything to do with this discussion.
quote:Someone stated earlier that science deals with the hows and religion/philosophy deals with the whys. Wise words.
Yes indeed. Doesn't necessarily mean they have to contradict each other, but they are still two different fields of study/
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I agree completely.
But it's still fun to tell people, when they ask why I want to be a pastor, that it's partly because a part of me just likes to piss people off Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:What experiment could completely falsify macroevolution?
Lack of a common genetic code or lack of conserved genes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What do you mean by "accept ... as beliefs"?
I mean you think it is true. As in, you are willing to put your life on the line driving across a bridge which is only safe if the laws of science used to design it are accurate.
Placing this trust in science requires more than simply saying "the theory is consistent with the facts so far." It requires you to actually believe the theory.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Ive always believed that faith is simply the term we use for belief without reason or evidence to support that belief. If you believe in evolution, then I would suspect that you believe in it not through faith but through the logical arguments and evidence which point that way. If you believe in God, then you believe in God based on faith. That is the difference between the ID and evolution debate and why evolution should be taught in schools without ID.
I also want to say that those who say that it is just as probable that God created the Earth and did something forget that this argument also means other things. It means that I can say that we are being decieved into believing that by an evil demon and thats what he wants you to believe, and I can say that we live in a matrix and the AI wants you to believe that. Again, I see these as reasons why evolution should be taught and ID not.
Now, I am not saying that having faith is not justified. I will never say, and you will never hear me say, that a belief in God is irrational, stupid, or moronic. I am fully aware that I could be wrong in my atheism. To me, its just the best conclusion that fits the evidence but to others they can overcome this with faith. I cannot do so. But please, and I say this because ive taught a class on religion and heard people who are ashamed to believe in God, dont feel like all people who do not believe what you believe think you are in anyway stupid. I simply put forward an argument for evolution. I hope that its correct!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I mean you think it is true. As in, you are willing to put your life on the line driving across a bridge which is only safe if the laws of science used to design it are accurate.
Placing this trust in science requires more than simply saying "the theory is consistent with the facts so far." It requires you to actually believe the theory.
I think the fact that "the theory is consistent with the facts so far" is enough to get me to cross the bridge.
My willingness to cross the bridge is based on my knowledge that hundreds of thousands of bridges have been built this way, millions of people have crossed these kinds of bridges safely, and the government engineers have inspected this bridge and certified its structural integrity.
In other words, I am willing to cross that bridge based on logical proof or material evidence of its safety. It is not based on some sort of unproven belief in a mysterious, unkown principle that I cannot articulate.
My willingness to trust my life to science does not mean I believe science is infallible. It only means, as I have stated before, that the scientific method has provided the best solution so far based on the information we have.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Lack of a common genetic code or lack of conserved genes.
Yes, that would falsify our current model of macroevolution. However, it would also falsify one of the most popular models of Intelligent Design - namely the model that suggests God created us by influencing a gradual evolution of life. Thus, that particular model of Intelligent Design is also falsifiable.
And that brings up something I hadn't really thought about until just now... We are defining Intelligent Design in an unfairly broad fashion. By unfairly broad, I mean we are using the term to cover something far more broad that the traditional theory of evolution we are comparing it to.
We are discussing really only ONE model of evolution, while using the term "Intelligent Design" to refer to ALL models that involve God in any way. Because SOME of these models (such as the model that says God snapped his fingers and made life instantaneously) are not falsifiable, it means we can never falsify the entire group at once. Instead we can only falsify certain models - the scientific models. Thus we should really only discuss the one most convincing and scientificly testable model of Intelligent Design, like we do with Evolution.
Once we restrict ID to a single model of that sort, it is falsifiable in the same way traditional macroevolution is. After all, if the DNA of supposedly related species is totally unrelated, we would falsify the particular ID theory that God created life through guided evolution, and prove it is falsifiable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think the fact that "the theory is consistent with the facts so far" is enough to get me to cross the bridge.
I don't think so, because there are many other theories that are equally consistent with the facts - some of which would inevitably conclude that the bridge would collapse the second you step on it.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BOH,
As a certified "Professional Engineer," I am allowed to tell you what that principle is.
It's called "Bridginess."
After we engineers design a bridge, we all gather round in a circle, hold hands, and pray, "Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please, don't fall down."
So far, it works!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:because there are many other theories that are equally consistent with the facts
You mean there are other theories that will explain why bridges certified by engineers as structurally sound are actually safe? Like logical, verifiable theories?
Are you saying that sure, science is one explanation, but it is just as likely that the hand of God or alien tractor beams are holding up the bridges which happens to also be built by sound engineering principles (opps, I mean sound Bridginess principles, darn you engineers and your techno jargon! )
ssywak
[ August 13, 2005, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Kaylee (Member # 8362) on :
quote:God created everything in perfect working order, and instead of waiting 800 million bajillion years for everything to work itself out, He created it as it would be 10,000 years ago. Either that or he did create it 800 million bajillion years ago, and gave us the Genesis account for purely poetic and educational reasons. That said, I think the point is moot.
That is, it all comes down to faith. What we know: everything is in perfect working order right now. What we choose to believe: either it is all random, or it was call put into place by God.
Are you implying that it doesn't matter today how things got here? Because if you are, well, it ain't so. You see, the theory of evolution doesn't just say things about the past. It tells us what organisms are like, right now, because of their past. We can use evolutions to make predictions and new discoveries.
Here's an example. I've been taking genetics classes. My professor asked us a question about a gene. It's from a eukaryotic organism, and it's on a chloroplast, he says. How would the scientists know it is on a chloroplast? he asked us. Well, we had a list of the closest matches to other genes that had been sequenced. As it turns out, one of the best matches was with a gene from photosynthetic bacterium. The theory of evolution tells us that related organisms are genetically similar. The endosymbiont theory says that chloroplasts (and mitochondria) are related to certain types of bacteria. So if this gene is very similar to a gene on an organism related to chloroplasts, then it is most likely on a chloroplast.
Evolution is actually a really useful and applicable theory. I like it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:But it's still fun to tell people, when they ask why I want to be a pastor, that it's partly because a part of me just likes to piss people off
Vid...I've known a lot of pastors and there must be a reason why, to a person, they DON'T adopt this particular attitude towards those they hope to encourage in faithfulness.
Also, it was kind of buried in my most recent post (page 3), but I'd like your take on the statement I made about how science can actually be a faith-builder -- it is a way to study God just as much as Scripture is.
My statement that I'd like your take on, though, is the part about belief in a perverse God who would provide evidence of that which is not true (like an old earth). I note that you have chosen to avoid the YE/OE question. But, I think, that's all to convenient. If we are told in Scripture that the evidence around us would convince us of God's existence (I'll look up the reference if I need to), then it stands to reason that empiricism (our best, most certain way of gathering that evidence) should lead us toward conclusions about God.
If, instead, it leads us to believe that God is a trickster, creating a 5 billion year old earth in a matter of days and then making it LOOK OLD, I think we have to question why that would be. It's like saying God gave us reasoning abilities to trip us up. It's a bloody test and only those who ignore the gifts of mind (intellect) have a hope of attaining Heaven. I think reasoning out that conclusion is perverse. If you think about it, means that you can reason to the point of deciding that reason is unreliable. Circular, right? Because you've just proven that you can't believe your proof.
You might say "well then, all there is is faith," except, again, you reached that conclusion by way of your faulty reasoning, and thus your conclusion about faith is also to be discounted. I think the situation is much simpler than that. The evidence exists and the DEEPER we understand the evidence, the MORE we'll understand the mind of God. So, as we develop our ability to study God's creation, we don't have to abandon reason, we have to sharpen it and use it to the best of our abilities.
Again...I think any conclusion other than that leads to belief in either no God or a very perverse and untruthful God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You mean there are other theories that will explain why bridges certified by engineers as structurally sound are actually safe? Like logical, verifiable theories?
There are exactly zero verifiable theories about the future structural soundness of the bridge - because you cannot verify scientific theories, or any theory about the future using only induction from the past. Science can tell you what IS NOT always true (theories that have been falsified through experiments), but it can't tell you what IS always true.
There are other theories that are logically consistent with the facts, however. Both the God and alien tractor beams would be good examples, among many. It entails a degree of faith to believe in the scientificly favored theory rather than these - because neither logic nor observation can prove any of them is true.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Science can tell you what IS NOT always true (theories that have been falsified through experiments), but it can't tell you what IS always true.
Interesting. Can science tell you what will most likely happen in the future, based on probability?
If I toss a coin a billion times, and it always lands heads or tails, am I correct to assume that it is extremely likely that the very next coin toss will produce either a heads or tails result, and not, say, a coin standing on its edge.
I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying Tres, and I really want to understand your point of view. You'll have to be patient with me. The only science I've seriously studied in college had the word "political" attached to it.
Edited to add:
I'm not quite sure why you believe the "hand of God" and "alien tractor" theories are on par with engineering theory.
I can ask an engineer why the bridge is safe. The engineer can show me stress test results, equations, statistics, etc. -- in short, all sorts of verifiable evidence that the bridge should be safe.
What can the "hand of God" and "alien tractor" theory people show me that is verifiable and testable?
[ August 14, 2005, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You see, Tres knows that philosophically one cannot say anything about the future -- what he doesn't seem to understand is that science is only concerned with what one can reasonably say about the future, which is dependent on what has happened in the past.
Also, a few minor points, Tres: first, evolution is not purposeful, even in the "theory" of intelligent design (though I think that's just because nobody's gotten around to asserting that it is, there). How, therefore, would dead-end paths demonstrate anything? Especially as the "superior being", while described as "superior" (and little else) is not described as perfect in his/her/its efforts, and therefore any "imperfections" (which are themselves not really possible, given the previous note about there being no standard to compare against in order to determine "quality" of an evolutionary change) do not change the possibility of any intelligent designer one bit.
Furthermore, scientific theories are not monolithic, as I have noted before. One cannot take the theory of gravity, add the notion that there's a puce beach ball at such a huge remove that we can never detect it in any way before the universe ends (however that happen), and have an equally viable scientific theory. Scientific theories are evaluated based on independent considerations of their atomic parts, not everything they say they include all at once, and on how those parts fit together. I contemplated going through a lengthy demonstration about how this would apply to ID in respect to evolutionary theory, but I'm going to assume people are intelligent enough to make the connection.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, to more specifically address Beren One Hand's question: from a philosopher's point of view, science cannot actually tell you about the future, that science is often pretty good about being right about the future (typically in the form of a statistical model) in many things notwithstanding.
Luckily for those of us who like to use the results of science, science is willing to settle for being right over being possible.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Interesting. Can science tell you what will most likely happen in the future, based on probability?
No, unless you have faith in the idea that the future will be very like the past. There could be some probability that the laws of science will all completely change tommorrow for no known reason, and we have no way of determining what the chance of that might be - without resorting back to the assumption that the future will be like past.
quote:I can ask an engineer why the bridge is safe. The engineer can show me stress test results, equations, statistics, etc. -- in short, all sorts of verifiable evidence that the bridge should be safe.
What can the "hand of God" and "alien tractor" theory people show me that is verifiable and testable?
They might show you the Bible, or whatever it is that would lead one to believe in an alien tractor. They obviously would not PROVE anything, unless you accept certain premises on faith. However, the same is true for the engineering evidence. The difference is that the assumptions required to accept the engineer's evidence are much easier to have faith in for most people.
quote:what he doesn't seem to understand is that science is only concerned with what one can reasonably say about the future, which is dependent on what has happened in the past.
I do understand that, but it all depends on what you call reasonable. I was just responding to the point that science only requires logic and observation, not faith. Strictly speaking, it's pretty true that you can do science through just science and observation, but in order to apply it to the future you need to add a bit of faith.
quote:Furthermore, scientific theories are not monolithic, as I have noted before. One cannot take the theory of gravity, add the notion that there's a puce beach ball at such a huge remove that we can never detect it in any way before the universe ends (however that happen), and have an equally viable scientific theory. Scientific theories are evaluated based on independent considerations of their atomic parts, not everything they say they include all at once, and on how those parts fit together.
The difference between God in ID and the beach ball above is that God supposedly plays a significant role in the model of Intelligent Design. God actually solves a problem that proponents see in modern evolution theory. I doubt ID theorists would consider His role simply tacked on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You've certainly treated the role of the "superior being" as largely tacked on, talking about how in so many ways ID "theory" shares content with evolutionary theory.
I don't much care how important IDers consider the role of the superior being; it is notionally separable, which is easily demonstrated by evolutionary theory not rejecting its possibility, but that the presence of the superior being is scientifically establishable.
edit: hence the common class of people who consider evolutionary theory correct who prefer "theistic evolution".
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:There are exactly zero verifiable theories about the future structural soundness of the bridge - because you cannot verify scientific theories, or any theory about the future using only induction from the past. Science can tell you what IS NOT always true (theories that have been falsified through experiments), but it can't tell you what IS always true.
That's going right off in the direction of "we can never really know anything," which I have previously established as the last desperate gasp from the religious side in a failed theological argument.
I can gurantee you that the George Washington Bridge, barring a terrorist act or a Richter 10 earthquake or 200 foot high tsunami wave, will remain standing for the next 10 years. If I knew more about its maintenance schedule, I'd put it at 50 years or more.
But, if you want to get right to the concept of "verifieable theories about the future, well..you have to wait until that future point in time to really verify them, don't you.
10 years ago, I predicted that my hydraulic, 50 hp, 4-spiralift water-torture-tank lift would last as long as the MGM EFX show over in Vegas. Using engineering principles. I was right. So were the principles. What have I missed here?
Please make you point more clearly, tres, or do I somehow understand it?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I do understand that, but it all depends on what you call reasonable. I was just responding to the point that science only requires logic and observation, not faith. Strictly speaking, it's pretty true that you can do science through just science and observation, but in order to apply it to the future you need to add a bit of faith.
Thanks for explaining that. So based on your model, it is not just science that requires faith; basically anything we use to predict the future requires faith, even basic principles of logic and cause and effect.
When I breath, I'm acting on "faith" that oxygen is still good for me. I'm pretty darn sure I should breath, but heck, how can I be sure. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The issue I have is with conflating such degenerate definitions of faith will all other sorts of faith Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
If people who enter into theological discussions feel that the only way they can "win" is to render language and knowledge meaningless, is it a fair assumption to make that they really don't have a viable viewpoint to present?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vid:
quote:Originally posted by Celebrindal: On the Young Earth v. Old Earth subject I just want to say that the appearance of age arguement makes God a liar.
Little peice of completely useless information: Darwin only considered the possibility of there being no God when he found that so many species had gone extinct; the idea that God would do something so atrocious as let a species die out simply boggled his brain. The theory of evolution didn't prove to Charles that there wasn't a God until after he had decided to not believe in Him.
It's a good thing Darwin was such a master theologian.
Without death, there is no life.
Speaking of condesending....
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
That's "condescending"
Sheesh!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
No, it's "That's 'condescending.'"
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
That's "condescending"
Sheesh!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: because neither logic nor observation can prove any of them is true.
This is one of the MANY reasons why you have to be an engineer and not a philosiphist to work on bridges.
And I for one am glad that that is the way it is done. Hell, to me his arguments don't even hold water let alone 200,000 tons of people in cars. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't much care how important IDers consider the role of the superior being; it is notionally separable, which is easily demonstrated by evolutionary theory not rejecting its possibility, but that the presence of the superior being is scientifically establishable.
It is only separable if He does nothing of importance to the process at hand. But if He does alter the process and results, then He is no more separable from the model than the moon is separable from our model of the tides.
quote:That's going right off in the direction of "we can never really know anything," which I have previously established as the last desperate gasp from the religious side in a failed theological argument.
I can gurantee you that the George Washington Bridge, barring a terrorist act or a Richter 10 earthquake or 200 foot high tsunami wave, will remain standing for the next 10 years. If I knew more about its maintenance schedule, I'd put it at 50 years or more.
That is because you are, like everyone I think, a person with faith, just like the many people who have told me they are certain that God exists. However, the fact that they guarantee such things or have such faith does not make it certain that God exists, and the fact that you said the above does not make it certain that the bridge will stand. All sorts of things could occur to destroy it, ranging from an accidental explosion to an inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe. Bridges have, historically, fallen when they weren't supposed to.
And it sounds like we never know anything because, at least in regards to the future, we don't. Whether this is desperate or not, it is accurate.
quote:The issue I have is with conflating such degenerate definitions of faith will all other sorts of faith
You don't have to call it "faith" if you don't want to, but claiming that belief in science requires only logic and observation is still false.
I am not sure what would make it categoricly different from religious faith though. It seems to me the difference is only in the degree to which people find that faith reasonable, and varies from person to person.
quote:This is one of the MANY reasons why you have to be an engineer and not a philosiphist to work on bridges.
Beware! Philosophers DID work on those bridges you drive across, indirectly - they invented the original theories used to design them, and the method through which those theories were figured out. Besides, to say someone is an engineer is not to say they aren't a philosopher. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Bridges have, historically, fallen when they weren't supposed to.
Far more bridges have remained standing in accordance with engineering principles than have fallen down, though. Let's say that I build a sturdy bridge using tested civil engineering principles and you build one using alien tractor beam principles. I think I know which bridge I'd rather drive an 18-wheeler across.
quote:Philosophers DID work on those bridges you drive across, indirectly - they invented the original theories used to design them, and the method through which those theories were figured out.
In all of those cases the philosophers were also engineers. Nowadays we have very few philosopher-engineers.
Of what value, significance, or meaning is the "faith" I have that the world will continue to operate in largely the same way from one moment to the next?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Is Intelligent Design falsifiable? If so, how could this be done?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, considering you can't "prove" a negative, at least not using Tres' style of logic...
There is a difference between complete faith and a faith based on logic and empirical logic, Tres. When you say faith you mean something other than what most people mean when they say it.....not that that is anything new. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:All sorts of things could occur to destroy it, ranging from an accidental explosion to an inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe....
And it sounds like we never know anything because, at least in regards to the future, we don't. Whether this is desperate or not, it is accurate.
If we accept your idea that "inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe" is somehow relevant in our discussions, then not only are we unable to know the future, we are, under your reasoning, also unable to know anything about the past or the present.
You think you are touching your keyboard. But are you sure, 100% sure, that the laws of the universe governing your sensory perception have not suddenly changed? You think you remember your last wedding anniversary. But are you sure the laws of the universe governing your linear perception of time are still unchanged?
We are unable to know anything in your universe, period.
Concepts like "evidence" or "logic" cannot exist in your model. They are all invalid because your broad definition of "faith"--the idea that believing in anything we cannot know as eternally true is considered an act of faith--undermines every foundation of human knowledge.
I cannot define science then, in terms of "evidence" or "logic"--for you have rendered those words meaningless.
It is fun to say "there is no spoon" once in a while. But when you are hungry for soup, or need to cross a bridge....
[ August 15, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, he's only not separable if the superior being both does not alter the process in a testable manner and if the way it alters it in may not be adequately explained by another model (such as an appropriately constructed random variable).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Is Intelligent Design falsifiable? If so, how could this be done?
It depends on what exact model you'd be using, I'd think. I doubt you could falsify ID in general - it's just too broad. However, if you develop a specific model as to HOW God is influencing evolution, you could falsify it by finding something that conflicts with that specific model.
quote:Well, considering you can't "prove" a negative, at least not using Tres' style of logic...
You can prove a negative, if you are talking about universal propositions. If you talk about a rule that is sup posed to ALWAYS be true, you prove it false by finding one instance when it is false. You falsify "All Dogs are brown" by finding one dog who is not brown.
quote:There is a difference between complete faith and a faith based on logic and empirical logic, Tres
What is "complete" faith? I don't believe there is anyone who believes anything that isn't based in part on logic and empirical evidence. Why would one believe such a thing?
I certainly base my faith in God on various empirical observations and logical arguments, as do many who have explained their belief to me. Usually those observations have to do with unanswerable questions in the world, internal feelings, and the correctness of supposed authorities.
quote:If we accept your idea that "inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe" is somehow relevant in our discussions, then not only are we unable to know the future, we are, under your reasoning, also unable to know the past or the present as well.
That depends on just how skeptical you want to be. There are very few you can know for certain without any faith - things like the contents of your own consciousness.
quote:Concepts like "evidence" or "logic" cannot exist in your model. They are all invalid because your broad definition of "faith"--the idea that believing in anything we cannot know as eternally true is considered an act of faith--undermines every foundation of human knowledge.
You say "undermines"... Why does faith undermine anything? It only does so if you think it is bad to have faith in things. I don't believe this is so. Faith is necessary, within certain limits, and it is an important contributor to the usefulness of logic and observation.
Why would logic and evidence cease to exist if they often also required faith in order to result in belief? I don't see why this would be true. Just like logic is pretty useless without pairing it with observation, both of those are also somewhat useless without adding faith. This is why (and this is my point in saying this) faith is not a bad thing, or an element of belief to be frowned upon.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The reason I asked (about falsifiability) is that a blogger I know and respect has said that it *is* falsifiable, but unfortunately, you can't comment on his blog w/o MS Passport ... and then I found this thread.
I tended to think it was not. Although I don't agree with ID, I think it's worth discussing, but it seems like more of a "philosophy of science" thing than a science thing.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:That depends on just how skeptical you want to be.
I'm just following your definition of faith to its logical conclusion.
quote:Why would logic and evidence cease to exist if they often also required faith in order to result in belief?
As I've stated in the sentence below the one you quoted, "I cannot define science then, in terms of 'evidence' or 'logic'--for you have rendered those words meaningless."
Can you have evidence of anything under your definition of faith? If we cannot achieve perfect knowledge of anything in this world, how can anything be considered evidence?
Your tactile perception of your keyboard cannot be considered "evidence" that the keyboard exists. You can never really be sure about that pesky keyboard's existence, given that we do not have perfect knowledge about the nature of keyboards (or our sense of touch) in our universe. (Remember how we don't have perfect knowledge of the safety of bridges? This is a lot like that.)
Your perception of the keyboard is, at most, evidence that you believe the keyboard exists. But then how do we even know you exist?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My understanding of most proponents' claims about ID is that it is scientifically provable to be true. Since that is falsifiable, I would say that ID as a scientific theory certainly is falsifiable.
If it is merely meant as a "philosophy of science" claim, then I really question its place in a public school science classroom. But as a philosophical construct, I probably agree with it. As a scientific theory, I don't.
Do I think the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution? Yup. Do I think there is scientific evidence to back this up? Not really, nor do I especially think there should be.
[edit: typo]
[ August 15, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No aspect of ID that is not borrowed from evolutionary theory is scientifically falsifiable.
The question of whether or not it is a scientific theory is decidable (falsifiable's not quite the right concept), as rivka notes. And it isn't.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Rivka, Why do you think that "the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution"? Do you have reasoning for this beyond personal preference? (If this sounds confrontational, please know that it isn't meant that way. I'm genuinely curious.)
As for science as a window into the Mind of God, does new insite into "God's Mind" change your perception of what, exactly, God is? To clarify: Let's say a "scientist" a thousand years ago believed that all the variety on earth was evidence itself of a divine creator. It was clear to him from the vast diversity of life and the fact that everything had its place in nature and its own function in the cycle of life that God just made everything "poof", ex nihilo, as he saw it then. He might literally believe the story of Adam and Eve, and believe that the post Eden natural world was now as it was then.
Today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a real scientist who believes that, even though you could probably find many that believe in God in some form. A God who created the world as we see it today, by influencing evolution (i.e. presumably by actively tweaking the random mutations in DNA), is really a different creature from the God believed in by the ancient scientist. He might think that such an idea of a God tweaking "imperfect" beings toward some ultimate goal as a heresy. You, clearly, do not.
***
One major issue I have with ID is that no matter which paradigm you use, ID seems to be saying "That which we don't know" = GOD. This illustrates why they might find science to be such a threat -- the larger our body of knowledge becomes, the smaller "GOD" becomes.
Additionally, why don't the ID folks also have a problem with the "theory of planetary formation"? Why are they just attacking evolution? Why aren't they clamoring to include ID concepts in star formation or rocky planet formation or in discussions of the Big Bang?
Oddly enough, I can accept the possibility that some intelligence influenced the creation of life on Earth at some point, but I wouldn't necessarily call that intelligence "God". And if it claimed the title for itself, I still wouldn't believe this was the "God" of Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion I know of unless it claimed such for itself and did a helluva lot of explaining of specifics.
It just seems like as time goes on, all the old religious "knowledge" gets watered down into allegory, poetics, and parable in, what seems to me, an attempt to cling to a premise that objective observations do not support and in many ways prove, if not "false", then certainly "incorrect as previously interpreted".
That is why I think science moves forward better without having to address the metaphysical. No matter how one couches it in the language of science, ID is a metaphysical theory. This is demonstrable from the fact that the claim never changes, no matter the evidence. The term "God" is kept sufficiently vague as to fit any new evidence. Because of this it has no scientific value. At least scientific "knowledge" changes as new data is discovered.
(NOTE: Yes, I know that the word "God" is scrupulously avoided by ID proponents, but I hope we can at least agree that this is what is meant by "intelligence". I have yet to find an ID proponent who espouses ID while entertaining even the possibility that this "intelligence" is other than the God of The Bible.)
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Here we go.
I have totally and ultimately disproven the concept of "Intelligent Design":
Now, as long as reality stays what it was when I wrote it, it should be all good.
--Steve
[edited: DAMN! I hate when reality shifts like that! Damn Damn Damn!]
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote: I have yet to find an ID proponent who espouses ID while entertaining even the possibility that this "intelligence" is other than the God of The Bible.
Actually, I have seen quotes from ID-proponents stating, "heck, it could have been aliens!"
Granted, these are probably disingenuous statements.
Which leads me to my other comment about the ID movement generally: I despise its dishonesty. It was one thing, 20 years ago, to have to argue 'evolution' vs. 'creationism.' That at least could be argued on its merits.
But the movement today is a calculated political movement, that seeks to spoonfeed pat quotes, bad science, and not a few lies to susceptible school boards, with the goal of sowing sufficient doubt to let this proto-creationism get a foothold.
'Don't mention God,' is their mantra -- don't trigger the church-and-state clause.
It just riles me that a group that supposedly includes many religious people is choosing the low road. It is as if in the thrust to make religion about science (or science about religion), they have forgotten that religion is also about right and wrong, about ethics and morals, about truth.
Maybe I missed it where Jesus said 'the ends justify the means.'
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you have evidence of anything under your definition of faith? If we cannot achieve perfect knowledge of anything in this world, how can anything be considered evidence?
I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain. If I think I am in pain, for instance, I am definitely in pain. It's a direct observation. From this and other assumptions we have simply faith in, I think we have evidence for all the things we come to believe.
You seem to be implying that evidence is not evidence if you aren't certain of it. I disagree. For instance, if I claim I witness a murder, my claim will be evidence of the conclusion that there was a murder, despite the fact that we all know it could be possible I am lying or making it up for some reason. This does not mean it ceases being evidence - it only means we must have some faith in that evidence in order use it to justify the conclusion.
And no, I don't think I know for sure if my keyboard or anything else physical exists. But I consider my perception of it as evidence, and when combined with the faith-based assumption that the things I percieve reflect an objective reality, I conclude that it exists. Note that this does not constitute perfect evidence, but it does constitute some evidence - enough that when combined with a degree of faith that I consider acceptable, I can accept the conclusion. I think that is how evidence works to justify beliefs.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain.
Why? What do you mean by certain?
quote:You seem to be implying that evidence is not evidence if you aren't certain of it.
Based on your "universal laws may change at any time" model, how do you compare between a person who actually saw a murder versus another who merely thinks he saw one? How do you evaluate which evidence is more reliable in a universe where nothing is certain?
The person who actually saw a murder only has his sensory perceptions as "evidence" that he witnessed a crime. But according to you, sensory evidence makes at least one faith-based assumption--that the things you perceive actually reflects objective reality.
How do we know that another faith-based assumption--that things you make up in your head actually reflects objective reality--isn't just as valid?
What makes one faith-based assumption better than the other?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To answer the "How did whales evolve:?" question from a little while back, I typed "whale evolution" into google and here's the second page I got back. From that page:
quote:The evolution of whales has been a mystery. How did a large, big-brained mammal -- air-breathing, warm-blooded, giving birth to live young -- come to live entirely in water, when mammals evolved on land? The discovery of many fossils with transitional features documents the transformation of whales from land animals to ocean dwellers. Another indication of whales' evolutionary heritage can be seen in the way they move.
Funny thing is that the evolution of whales from land mammals was for some time a confounding question that has been resolved through a remarkable fossil history in which you can actually see the macroevolution of land creatures into proto-whales occuring. From being a stumbling block to evolutionary theory, it has become some of the strongest supporting evidence for the idea that macroevolution does actually occur.
As a sidenote, this is like the 5th time I've mentioned the whale macroevolution thing on Hatrack. Is this something that people don't agree with but don't voice their disagreeement or does it just not sink in for some reason?
---
On another note, the purpose of science is not to say what is true and what is not. This is forever beyond it's scope. Rather, science is a system of observation and testing with the end goal of having a certain level of confidence in the predictive ability of certain hypotheses. To put it more simply, science doesn't actually ever say "This is right.", but instead more something like "If you use this idea, you're likely to be right." The idea itself doesn't even have to be right (e.g. we know the earth is round, but we use flat maps when we're driving anyway); it just has to have good predictive validity.
The criticism that Tres is leveling "You can't be totally sure of anything." is not a valid as this is a long understood and acknowledged part of the philosophy of science. Equating the untestible, untransferrible faith that Tres is talking about with the faith required by the at best 99.999999999999999999 and so on percentage that is the ceiling of scientific testing is an egregious epistemological error.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BTW, your timing sucks. I saw this post literally two minutes before I popped out the door (running late, as usual). I knew I didn't have time to answer it then, and I forgot about it until now.
Oh, look! Shiny!
quote:Rivka, Why do you think that "the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution"? Do you have reasoning for this beyond personal preference? (If this sounds confrontational, please know that it isn't meant that way. I'm genuinely curious.)
It's a reasonable question. *ponders* I guess it's a combination of my background (raised Jewish Orthodox by two people who became religious as adults . . . and who are both academics in the sciences) and my personal experiences and research. (Among the authors who helped shape my views: Aryeh Kaplan, Lawrence Kelemen, and Nosson Slifkin.)
I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
quote: As for science as a window into the Mind of God, does new insite into "God's Mind" change your perception of what, exactly, God is? To clarify: Let's say a "scientist" a thousand years ago believed that all the variety on earth was evidence itself of a divine creator. It was clear to him from the vast diversity of life and the fact that everything had its place in nature and its own function in the cycle of life that God just made everything "poof", ex nihilo, as he saw it then. He might literally believe the story of Adam and Eve, and believe that the post Eden natural world was now as it was then.
Today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a real scientist who believes that, even though you could probably find many that believe in God in some form. A God who created the world as we see it today, by influencing evolution (i.e. presumably by actively tweaking the random mutations in DNA), is really a different creature from the God believed in by the ancient scientist. He might think that such an idea of a God tweaking "imperfect" beings toward some ultimate goal as a heresy. You, clearly, do not.
Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily. Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why? What do you mean by certain?
I'll put it this way: If I see a table, it might not really exist. I might just be imagining a table. However, the image of the table that I have in my mind definitely IS there, whether it is a dream or not. I can't be under the illustion that I am seeing an image of a table and yet not be seeing it, because seeing an illusion of an image IS seeing that image. That's how direct observation works - you can see, for sure, the contents of your own mind, so to speak.
That was confusing still. I blame the fact that is 1 am...
quote:Based on your "universal laws may change at any time" model, how do you compare between a person who actually saw a murder versus another who merely thinks he saw one? How do you evaluate which evidence is more reliable in a universe where nothing is certain?
You rely on the things you have faith in, and act as if those things were known. It is all a sort of house of cards, ultimately, but it is a house of cards that continues to work, so we get by with it.
quote:What makes one faith-based assumption better than the other?
Other assumptions, observations, and evidence that might influence what you choose to have the most faith in. If you want to know where the FIRST assumptions come from, those that you need to make everything else, I don't know. They may be hardwired into us, or learned somehow. I don't know the answer to why the universe continues to work the way we think it should, and why it continues to follow the major assumptions we make, but it does. We don't know it will, but it does seem to nonetheless.
quote:Rather, science is a system of observation and testing with the end goal of having a certain level of confidence in the predictive ability of certain hypotheses. To put it more simply, science doesn't actually ever say "This is right.", but instead more something like "If you use this idea, you're likely to be right." The idea itself doesn't even have to be right (e.g. we know the earth is round, but we use flat maps when we're driving anyway); it just has to have good predictive validity.
This is not true because science can't logically prove what is "likely" to be right. This is because we have no idea what the likelihood is that things will change tommorrow. Yes, the sun has risen every day of my life. That doesn't mean the probability that it will rise tommorrow morning is 100%. It doesn't mean it is 99%. It doesn't even mean it is over 50%. This is because, whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason. Unlike a game with fixed parameters and rulests, like rolling a die, the future of the universe is open ended. We can assume the rules, and we do, but we don't know what the rules are for sure. Because of this, we can't calculate what is LIKELY to be true any better than we can calculate what WILL be true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So long as we keep turning up correct on what's likely to be true, I'm satisfied
To use a phrase I've used before: I'm willing to settle for being right over being possible.
Though its not really probabilities that science works with, strictly, its confidence intervals. And those we can be sure of, because they're properties of observed phenomena, not of future phenomena, even though they relate to future phenomena.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:That was confusing still. I blame the fact that is 1 am...
No, actually you explained that very clearly. Thanks for the responses, you've been a good sport.
[ August 16, 2005, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, Yes, and it's entirely possible that the next 1000 times I flip a balanced coin, it'll come up heads. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
On purely theoretical grounds, existentialism trumps epistemology. however, that gets thrown out the door as soon as you input empiricism. The fact is that coin will turn up heads around 500 times as has almost every coin that it's ever been tried on, fitted to a normal distribution.
The painstakingly worked out rules of scientific epistemology yield up definable confidence, if you assume that we exist in one of the subsets of universes where events occur according to deterministic rules. As this assumption has been and is constantly being supported by empirical experience and as it is necessary for us, constituted as we are, to deal with the world, the problems of existentialism can be safetly treated as little more than a philosophical abstraction. If we're wrong about that, which seems highly unlikely in the weight of what actually occurs, there's not a whole heck-a-ra-doo we could do about it anyway
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
rivka:
quote: Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do.
quote:Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.
quote:I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.
As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.
*****
Tres:
You've been using a lot of words I recognize as English, but I can't parse the meaning of much of what you have posted.
quote: This is not true because science can't logically prove what is "likely" to be right. This is because we have no idea what the likelihood is that things will change tommorrow. Yes, the sun has risen every day of my life. That doesn't mean the probability that it will rise tommorrow morning is 100%. It doesn't mean it is 99%. It doesn't even mean it is over 50%. This is because, whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason. Unlike a game with fixed parameters and rulests, like rolling a die, the future of the universe is open ended. We can assume the rules, and we do, but we don't know what the rules are for sure. Because of this, we can't calculate what is LIKELY to be true any better than we can calculate what WILL be true.
How is the future of the universe open-ended yet the future of the rules of dice games is not? Do not the rules of probability for dice depend on the same factors that determine whether tomorrow's Universe will be just like today's? You write, "whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason." How, then, can you use the word "probability" for things referring to today? There could have been no calculated probability for today either, if there can't be one for tomorrow. And if we can't calculate a probability for the sun's rising tomorrow, how can we calculate a probability for the throw of a dice. As has been stated before, you seem to be defining terms in this discussion at your own convenience, apparently now even within the same sentence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do.
You misunderstand me. I mean, know personally. I actually agree with your assessment of much of the science produced by such viewpoints. (And none of the authors I cited hold such views. They all are of the God-guided evolution school, more or less.) I merely disagreed with your claim that they don't exist. They do, and they are "real scientists."
quote:
quote:Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.
I know I sound glib. But I really do believe that the method doesn't actually matter. He could have done it any of the ways -- created the universe a moment ago (actually, I believe He did that as well, more on that later); created it full-fledged less than 6000 years ago; created it utilizing evolution and natural laws. Therefore I choose to believe that it is most likely that he did the latter, but I'm not invested in that belief. If it's one of the first two, that's fine.
quote:
quote:I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.
As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.
*laugh* I have encountered this bafflement before. I apologize for finding it amusing. Let me try to explain, although I suspect (from past experience) that I won't be terribly successful.
As I said, I consider it most likely that the evidence our senses and science presents (a world far older than 6000 years) is true -- at least as long as it doesn't contradict the Torah. Since there are many views that are compatible with this notion, all well and good.
But one of the interesting things about traditional Judaism is the importance of examining even deeply held notions from every side. Sometimes even admitting that we do not know which of two mutually-conflicting bits of Truth are literally true (and cannot know until Moshiach (the Messiah) comes). So, I am fairly comfortable with holding two mutually-exclusive facts to both be true. (Presumably only one literally, but no way to know which. Thus accepting both meanwhile.) Certainly doesn't apply to apply to very basic beliefs (I do not for instance both believe God is and is not); but when it comes to things like the age of the universe and the literal method of creation, sure.
Because I don't actually consider those very important. He could have done it any way He wanted to. If the Genesis story is merely allegorical (and I tend to believe there is more to it than that, but I'm not sure exactly how much is literal and how much is not), the lessons are still all there. And still all presented to us for good cause.
We say in the daily prayers that God (re-)creates the entire world every day, every moment. The entire universe is within (whatever that means in a non-physical plane) and of Him, and He re-creates every person, every blade of grass, every molecule and atom, each moment. And then recreates everything again.
As far that negating our responsibilities to the world we see, nonsense! Our job is not to decode the mysteries of creation (nothing wrong with doing so, but it's not our primary task). It is to deal with the universe we see and know, to play the hands we have been dealt (both collectively and individually) as best we can, following the guidelines He has given us. No matter how the world sprang into existence, it IS all temporary and illusory. The World to Come is the World of Truth.
But we were placed in this world, and our task is to make this world (and ourselves) the best we can. If indeed He placed us into a chess problem already half-solved (and I reiterate that I consider this possible but unlikely) it is not because He is capricious but because in His infinite wisdom and kindness that is what He determined to be best for us. And we still have to play out the remainder of the game.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
rivka: Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Your ideas are very foreign to me, but not having studied Judaism, or even known many practicing Jewish people, that's not too surprising. (I know many Jewish people, but only a few who practice the religion. Of those, none of them really talk about it in the common circles in which we move.)
I understand the issue with two conflicting "truths" (I think), but my mental processes can't really hold on to two mutually-exclusive "facts" as both being "true". To me, either one is true, or the other is true or they are both false. I can deal with not knowing which of the two is true, but until I do, I don't tend to call them "truths" or even "facts".
When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceeded it? If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see ).
I can see where as a person of faith, it might not matter what method God uses if you believe the end result is beneficial. But does this not conflict with you as a person of science? If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?
Two reasons I see for this - it's based onmy own beliefs, which are similar but not identical to those expressed by rivka here:
1.) Because science is empirically useful. Even if we're wrong about the origins, we can make predictions in this manner.
2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*nod* Yes, what Dags said. Also, I didn't say I gave equal weight to both possibilities. You'll note that this started with my statement that I considered God-guided evolution the most likely scenario.
quote: When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceded it?
Probably. (That was a serious answer, not a flippant one.)
quote: If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see ).
I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity? Certainly Karl's second alternative is different on that score, as it does not contain the concept that our ongoing existence is owed to an ongoing act of God. Even the first alternative ("God holding the universe together) seems more of a passive act. I would love to learn more about this if you ever feel up to explaining, Rivka.
By the way, thank you both, Karl and Rivka - I'm loving this conversation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity?
Definitely. That would be an important aspect of the difference. (Although I don't know what that difference means when referring to God. I believe everything that happens in this universe happens through His action -- never His inaction.)
Dunno, ask me on a day when I'm not meant to be packing to move . . . *shifty eyes*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.
Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?
Dag:
quote:2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.
Were I already a believer, I'd have faith in this, too, though in no way would my belief in God be contingent on a 6000 year old Earth. (This is not to imply yours or rivka's is either.) However, I don't see this as an idea that should prompt anyone toward belief. Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.
*whistles innocently*
quote: Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?
I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.
quote: Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Actually, this is (IMO) a big part of why there cannot ever be definitive proof of a young earth -- it would destroy free will.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, that just opens a-whole-nother can o' worms. I have a big problem with the whole "sure knowledge destroys free will" bit. According to many Christians, Lucifer rebelled against God. Surely he had the free will to do so. Surely he knew against what he was rebelling. Mormons, specifically, believe that we all chose to side with God's plan at that point. Surely we had free will to do so even though we were with God at the time.
(Of course, if you don't believe either of those things, then there's probably less of a conflict here. I just know too many humans to believe that people can't exercise their free will in the face of strong evidence.)
But "free will" is probably a discussion best moved to another thread if anyone is interested in it.
More to the point:
quote:I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.
OK. I'm not asking you so much what you know as what you believe, or what may or may not be deduced from the idea you have introduced me to. If it is something like what I tried to express above, then I see the idea as a way to describe how God fits the universe we perceive rather than some new insite into the universe itself. As a descriptor alone, I can categorize it with the two similar ideas "God holds the universe together", and "God is everywhere and all things come through him."
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
quote:I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain. If I think I am in pain, for instance, I am definitely in pain
Well, since my lower back problem has led to somepinched nerves down there, I (fairly) constantly feel pain in my ankles and feet, even though there's nothing there causing the pain. The "pain" sensation is a response to the nerves being pinched as they pass by my L4 & L5 vertebrae.
So you can't even rely on "pain" as an absolute. What do you have left? Brain in a vat?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You are feeling pain, even if there's nothing there causing it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, there is something causing it. It's the pinched nerve. However, I think the point is that ssywak is feeling pain in his/her feet and ankles, and that is not the source of the pain. Therefore, her concious experience of pain in her feet is unreliable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
His. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You are clearly not packing. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres' point wasn't that pain is somehow mystically always accurate as to location, but that you can be absolutely sure you're feeling pain -- the proof is the experience, and nothing more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You are clearly not packing.
I plead the fifth. However, I would like the court to note that thus far three loads of laundry have entered the washing machine. I need to go buy more detergent . . . am currently looking up local prices on Tide.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
. . . except that five minutes after that, I got a call from SBC and had to zip over to the apartment. But I'll pack when I get back to the house, really I will!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But that's all it is--it's the experience of pain. It's source cannot be accurately determined. If you bring the discussion to its logical conclusion (this is "solipsism," right?), then how do you know that anything outside your own mind exists.
This makes almost as much sense...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: KarlEd,
Rivka's right.
I'm packing.
Someone should be. I could use a little help . . .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: KarlEd,
Rivka's right.
I'm packing.
I'm not entirely sure why that was addressed to me, specifically, unless that's supposed to be a turn-on. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, KarlEd, I didn't mean to turn you on. It was more addressed to both you (who dared to doubt my sexuality) and Twinky, who I thought was commenting on the ease with which I might be mis-sexed due to the possibility that I might not be "packing."
Oh, nevermind!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Honestly, I thought at first that twinky was implying the same thing, and that brought a chuckle. I was about to post something along those lines in reply, but then I realized that he was chastizing rivka for not packing and his comment really didn't apply to you at all.
(unless, of course, my first impression was right and he was making a joke at your expense.)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Okay. Yes, it definitely assumes that our understanding is correct.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
ssywak![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)