posted
Someone who knows this perspective, please post!
Here's my understanding of it. Tell me if it's wrong or incomplete.
Some of the things that happen in the development of life are so unlikely that it's unreasonable to think they did happen, even over geologic time scales, without an intelligent designer making them happen. For example, the development of RNA.
Once life developed, there were features of organisms that were useless at intermediate stages. For example, half an eye, or half a wing, is useless. Therefore it's unreasonable to think that these things developed gradually, unless there was an intelligent designer making them happen.
I'll likely argue! but I want to be sure what I'm arguing about, first.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half an eye is useful, ditto half a wing. Even less than half of each is useful, and I can provide examples for each from among organisms alive today.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think ID people are using the eye as an example. I read Darwin's Black Box a while ago and I remember blood clotting was one of the examples given.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen some pretty convincing arguments that a useful eye could develop in stages, each stage being slightly more useful than the stage before.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an interesting conversation on the topic, but LOTS of things seem too complex at first galce for teh explinations we have to fit, but upon deeper examination those explinations fit very well.
Occham's razor isn't the best tool for scientific study, although it has it's uses. [Big Grin] Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't ever know, and most of the things we find support our theories...or at least support them better than the other theories do. [Big Grin]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the half-an-eye argument is useful or even makes any sense. An eye could evolve from simple light-receptive cells to something more complicated, being useful at any stage.
Intelligent Design as a simple theory has very few problems, but those who adopt it seem to have conflicting views about what it actually means. As well as that, it's treated as an addition to a belief system rather than a scientific theory.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is Intelligent Design? Or what are its arguments?
Intelligent Design is a calculated political movement to undermine the teaching of scientifically accredited evolution in US schools, to weaken the power of liberal, humanist, and atheistic/agnostic segments of society.
Its proponents tend to come from a fundamentalist, conservative, Protestant background. The Christian right in the US has always deplored the teaching of evolution as it directly contradicts literal interpretation of Biblical time scales, the origin of man and other species as distinct creations of God, and many other beliefs important to these denominations.
Other proponents have latched onto the movement who do not overtly share those religious convictions; but who either have other agendas (fame, power, notoreity) or are are simply confused and ill-educated. Michael Behe is in the former category.
Efforts to introduce 'creationism' into public school biology curricula over the past few decades have generally run afoul of the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment. Which account of divine creation should be taught? Genesis 1? Genesis 2:6-25? The Islamic? The Druidic? The Buddhist? The Hindu? Far safer to leave science to the scientists, and refer the rest to courses on comparative religion.
The new tactic (ID) is to attempt to cast academic doubt on evolution itself. The watchword of ID's efforts to change public school curricula is 'Teach the Controversy.' The Discovery Institute was founded with the direct objective of building a facade of academic credibility (i.e., unconnected to any mention of God or religion) so as to magnify the impression that there is a controversy.
Despite ID's claims to the contrary, and dozens of publications by apparently credentialed scientists, which have undergone no conventional peer review, there is no controversy. The scientific establishment, at every level, in biology, life sciences, neurology, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, etc., is united in its acceptance of the fundamental operative correctness of the body of the theory of evolution.
Any references you may see to disputation within the scientific community is about any of the countless detailed areas -- some small, some large, but none fundamental -- where differences of emphasis, cause, proof, rigor, philosophy, and preference divide scientific schools of thought. One of ID's tactics is to point out this disputation as a weakness of evolutionary theory -- when in fact, it is its strength.
ID proponents point to supposed 'gaps' and 'flaws' and claim that the scientific 'establishment' is reluctant to face those flaws because they fear the belief structure of evolution cannot bear scrutiny and will collapse. But this argument is utter baloney: science, by definition, thrives on interesting questions. There is nothing a young Ph.D. candidate wants more than to find a 'gap' or 'flaw' and be the first to answer the questions within it.
You can be quite sure, of all the pseduo-scientific challenges that ID may throw up to evolution, the answer to 99% of them is, "sorry, we got that covered, it is answered in the literature, nobody is avoiding the question, and you just have not done sufficient homework." The answer to the other 1% (and I am being generous here) is, "Ah! Good question! Let's study it!"
In no case would the answer be, "Ack! Shhhhhh! That would disprove Darwin!" In fact, in 150 years many details of Darwin have been gleefully 'disproven' and/or improved upon, including the concepts of macroevolution, new theories of extinction, punctuated equilibrium, DNA-based evolutionary reasearch, chaos theory and mutation, etc., and continue to be developed on all fronts.
But the ID movement doesn't really care that its arguments are distortions at best, lies at worst. They are taking the battle directly to communities -- school boards, curriculum committees, parents, church groups. To this audience, the pat phrase 'even the scientists don't agree' leads quite easily to 'teach the controversy.'
On to the arguments:
quote: Some of the things that happen in the development of life are so unlikely that it's unreasonable to think they did happen, even over geologic time scales, without an intelligent designer making them happen. For example, the development of RNA.
This type of statement is characteristic of ID's arguments. The simple fact is, it is an utterly unscientific statement. What do we mean by 'unlikely'? What do we mean by 'unreasonable'? And do most people have even a trace of comprehension what 'geologic time scales' are? And even if you assign rational values to all those loaded terms -- that is not how science proceeds! One does not test the rightness of a hypothesis by merely eye-balling its 'reasonableness.' Uncounted scientific breakthroughs have defied the 'reasonableness' of their day.
But again, ID does not care that humans are notoriously unreliable at estimating probabilities, reasonabless, and time scales, especially when Very Large Numbers are involved. In fact, they count on it. They need only make inroads with a credulous few, who now are armed with the 'fact' that nature is apparently only capable of producing unsurprising things, and that anything surprising must have been the product of a different, purposeful force, outside nature.
What a narrow world view ID prefers. Science operates very differently. It embraces anything observable, no matter how surprising it may seem at first. It then asks every question it can in an effort to understand it.
Do scientists ever ask, when facing a particularly nettlesome problem, 'gosh, maybe some external force or being just made it this way!'? I suppose they may be tempted to do so at times. But to stop there is a denial of everything scientific, a denial of the fundamental drive and power of the human mind to figure the world out. Will we EVER get to the point where science will look at some ineffable paradox and finally acknowledge, 'okay, that's it. God's fingerprint. There is no other conceivable explanation for the way this works or for its origin, than a supernatural force'?
Perhaps -- but guess what: at that moment, it would by definition cease to be supernatural.
quote: Once life developed, there were features of organisms that were useless at intermediate stages. For example, half an eye, or half a wing, is useless. Therefore it's unreasonable to think that these things developed gradually, unless there was an intelligent designer making them happen.
Your statement of this particular argument is a little muddy, but yes, this one is another of ID's ploys. Unreasonable according to whom? It's possible the human mind is particularly ill-equipped to assess what is reasonable or not, in these contexts.
In addition, this argument is pathetically easy to destroy. Useless? Who says? Half an eye may be no good for seeing; half a wing may be no good for flying. This is NOT a case where evolutionary biologists say, "oops! you got me there!" The known mechanisms of evolution fully account for development of complex organs. Proto-organs and their parts, according to evolution, either:
served the same purpose less well (but well enough to bestow a comepetitive advantage -- for example, light-sensitive cells)
served a quite different purpose
served no purpose, but bestowed no harm (for example, some mutations)
Can the evolution of every complex organ of every creature be accounted for, step by step? Of course not. There are an estimated 10 million-plus insect species that haven't even been discovered yet. Soft tissues are practically absent in the fossil record. But known, proven evolutionary mechanisms are fully up to explaining these phenomena in principle.
And where there are particularly tricky unknowns? -- well, it's just more work for a biologist one day.
If we ever graduate another from a public high school.
(Edit: typos.)
[ August 15, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I kept the heat to a dull murmur. I hope it didn't distract you from noting the factual info I responded with.
I too would be interested in a response from a proponent, especially if they could say anything different from what I said.
ID is at least two things: a body of ideas, that has to stand up to scientific scrutiny; and a smokescreen for a religio-political agenda. Naturally, given the latter, the former becomes automatically suspect.
One of the reasons the scientific community has been so ineffective at arguing against ID is that as science it is hard to take seriously. One hardly knows where to begin when assumptions, method, dialectic, and conclusions are ALL wrong.
But again, the specific arguments and their correctness (or lack thereof) are irrelevant to ID's ultimate purpose. If you intend to debate this topic, you need to know this.
quote:Someone who knows this perspective, please post!
I hope you don't believe that only a proponent can 'know' what it is.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*applauds* That was a great post (the big one). And I thought you kept the heat to a dull murmur. Very clearly written.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Intelligent Design is a calculated political movement to undermine the teaching of scientifically accredited evolution in US schools, to weaken the power of liberal, humanist, and atheistic/agnostic segments of society.
I'm going to try to show you just how ridiculous that sentence is.
Evolution is a calculated political movement to undermine Biblical teaching, to weaken the power and credibility of conservative and Chrisian segments of society, and ultimately remove morals from society entirely.
I do not believe that. There are people who fit what I wrote perfectly, and there are people who fit what JVP wrote perfectly. But to generalize an entire belief as a conspiracy against atheism is ridiculous.
FYI, I believe in ID. However, I think that evolution should absolutely be taught in schools, because it's such a popular and active subject matter. Like many people have pointed out, it is an excellent way to demonstrate and teach scientific theory, and there are discoveries and break-throughs every day that can help define or help change the theory that we have.
With that in mind, I think it should also be made clear that it's impossible to know, through science, whether creation was random chance or ID. I'm not saying that teachers need to have a unit on faith or philosophy or anything, but I think they need to make it clear what exactly we learn through science.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe in the same kind of ID as Tresopax and rivka -- that is to say, evolution started and/or guided by a deity in ways that are undiscernible to humans -- then you aren't disagreeing with JVP. The ID movement, irreducible complexity and all, is as he describes it, which is why people like me find it very upsetting that there's even a debate about this anywhere in the First World.
The fact that god isn't mentioned in science classes doesn't imply that god does not exist, after all.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The fact that god isn't mentioned in science classes doesn't imply that god does not exist, after all.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what is heavily implied, if not explicitely declared in many science classes.
The reason the ID movement has turned into such a monster is because it's all a matter of bad blood. People - on both sides of the debate - get all hyped up over it that they don't stop to think. And when that happens, the only way to get heard is to be the loudest, most extreme voice out there, and that's the voice that gets the headlines.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to take a look at the Wedge Strategy, which proposes just the kind of undermining JVP is talking about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily for you evolutionary theory doesn't say creation was random at all; in fact, evolutionary theory is completely compatible (as noted) with the belief that God causes it all (just as gravitational theory is).
The problem is when you start saying that there's proof a superior being exists due to how evolution has worked, which is a completely unscientific notion (unless you have an independently repeatable test which, if run, will either increase or decrease the experimenter's confidence in the existence of said superior being?)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly what I mean by most extreme voice.
This may be a shock to you, but 19 out of 20 "religious experts" you see on the History Channel or on Larry King or on Dateline are pretty much as extreme as you can get. There are a few good, quality leaders whose names are out there (Chuck Swindol, anyone related to Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, to name a few), but most of them are pretty much off the map.
If you want an example, google the Jesus Seminar. These "experts" got together and voted on what they think Jesus really said. So instead of a red-letter New Testament, they've got more of a color-coded NT, based on whether Jesus really said it, said something like it, or whether it was completely made up by the authors.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, that is exactly what is heavily implied, if not explicitely declared in many science classes.
Is it? I disagree; that was certainly not my experience. Additionally, if it were true, wouldn't far fewer people believe in god?
Unless one of the other of us has unbiased data on the subject, I think both of us should refrain from making claims about whether or not many or most science classes imply or state that god does not exist. I don't have that data. Do you?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The problem is when you start saying that there's proof a superior being exists due to how evolution has worked, which is a completely unscientific notion
I agree completely. Teachers need to make it clear that the scientific method can't tell us whether or not God created everything.
Edit: took out a comment for the sake of not being confusing. See next post Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Is it? I disagree; that was certainly not my experience. Additionally, if it were true, wouldn't far fewer people believe in god?
Unless one of the other of us has unbiased data on the subject, I think both of us should refrain from making claims about whether or not many or most science classes imply or state that god does not exist. I don't have that data. Do you?
A very good point. I have no data, just my own experiences and the experiences of my friends. I'll refrain from making comments like that from now on Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's exactly what I mean by most extreme voice.
Regardless of whether the ID movement is extreme, ID as they see it is what's being debated in places like Kansas. That -- and not what you describe as the mainstream view -- is what people are currently trying to get into science classrooms, and it's what has people like JVP and myself so riled up.
Additionally, the only distinction between your view of ID and my view of evolutionary theory is the presence or absence of god. Why do you think god should be mentioned in a science classroom, given that god's existence is not subject to testing by science? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case, you do not believe in ID as put forward by any of its major proponents, or the people arguing for its inclusion in schools.
You are a believer in theistic evolution, which is a separate notion that does not assert the presence of a "superior being" can be scientifically established.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky: there is no real "diffference" between his view and mainstream evolutionary theory, as mainstream evolutionary theory leaves completely open the question of "ultimate cause".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm genuinely curious about this...It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
Since you asked... God, as decribed in the Hebrew scriptures, apparently seems to be able to alter/manipulate the laws of physics at his whim. If God were to perhaps rent out this unique service to us humans, it would be very useful to science. Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why do you think god should be mentioned in a science classroom, given that god's existence is not subject to testing by science? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
I understand what you're saying completely, and I agree that science class doesn't need to have religion forced into it.
But one thing that riles up all the Kansas ID folk is that they've got the same impression that we were just talking about, and having teachers just give sort of a disclaimer at the beginning of the unit on evolution, IMO, would help calm the waters. Obviously, not everybody is going to be happy, but I think that could do some good.
(Sorry about the delay on the post... I'm at work and duty called)
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes; theistic evolution is not a term for a scientific theory, but a term for the whole belief a person has which encompasses support they have of evolutionary theory as well as their belief a God or Gods is intimately involved in the process of evolutionary theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: mainstream evolutionary theory leaves completely open the question of "ultimate cause".
As crazy as it sounds, I've never had anyone say that straight out. Just having science teachers say that when they start their unit on evolution would do a LOT of good when it comes to pissed-off parents and students.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But one thing that riles up all the Kansas ID folk is that they've got the same impression that we were just talking about, and having teachers just give sort of a disclaimer at the beginning of the unit on evolution, IMO, would help calm the waters. Obviously, not everybody is going to be happy, but I think that could do some good.
Ah, I see. Sort of like "Just so we're clear, for those of you who believe in god, this here theory does not contradict that belief." Yeah, that'd be fine by me.
Also, no need to apologize. My work day is thankfully over, but soon I'll be doing other stuff like making dinner. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Also, no need to apologize. My work day is thankfully over, but soon I'll be doing other stuff like making dinner.
I just think it's funny when there are 2 or 3 different conversations going in the post, and they kind of all tie in together, and then I get caught up with work and I get behind. Good times.
Mmm... dinner. I just had a hot pocket.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Their asserted argument was not for the inclusion of ID, though it certainly sounded like it as they made it; the primary thrust of their witnesses was not to allege problems with the teaching of evolution, but to allege problems with evolutionary theory. Clearly these people do not agree with you on the whole.
CURRENT STANDARDS: The "descent with modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors... [is] documented in the fossil record."
ADDED IN PROPOSED STANDARDS: 'The view that living things... are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by .. (a) discrepancies in the molecular evidence previously thought to support that view; (b) a fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and (c) studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development."
I say amusing because all of those "objections" have been soundly dealt with by evolutionary theorists, in at least the last case many years ago.
That's not an acknowledgement of problems with evolutionary theory, that's spouting random bits of nonsense that aren't problems with evolutionary theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my problem with those that are attacking Darwin in favor of God, is that they refuse to accept that if science can't answer something now, it might be able to in the future.
My cousin is a hard core Christian who doesn't believe in Evolution, and she teaches at a private Christian high school. She's also homeschooling her kids because public schools are the devil. Last Thanksgiving, we committed the ultimate sin and argued about not only politics, but religion as well.
Evolution came up. Her basic argument was "I refuse to believe we came from monkeys" but pressed on when she realized that wasn't really a rational argument. She said that carbon dating doesn't work at all, and that scientists keep changing their minds all the time. Also that sudden jumps in species variation has no explanation. She also believes the earth is only 5,000 years old.
Much of our argument centered around the fact that I was saying "sure from fossil records it appears to be an explosion, but that's because they haven't found the evidence that links them yet, it's a work in process." Whereas she claimed it hasn't been found because obviously God did it, and it doesn't exist.
Personally, I believe in God, and think he might have gotten the ball rolling a few billion years ago, but that science and reason has taken over since then, and God has since taken up a Terra Laissez-Faire attitude (Hands off Earth).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Please note, I did not say: "Proponents of Intelligent Design are bent on undermining...," etc.
I stated the goal of the movement. I stand corrected in that there are certainly many, including apparently yourself, who 'believe in ID' but who may not share those objectives.
quote:Evolution is a calculated political movement to undermine Biblical teaching, to weaken the power and credibility of conservative and Chrisian segments of society, and ultimately remove morals from society entirely.
I appreciate what you did here -- and I think most would agree the parallel (if pursued) collapses as soon as you consider that ID is indeed a 'movement', and evolution is not.
But here is what I find really interesting, and very much worthy of discussion: from many perspectives evolution does do exactly what you wrote. Much has been written asserting this. And nothing else explains the zeal with which many devout Christians fight it.
On the one hand are sincere, God-fearing, devout, good-hearted, church-going families, teaching their children to pray and to believe and to be good according to a particular set of teachings and a particular interpretation of a particular scripture.
On the other hand, these same children arrive in a classroom and are taught -- TESTED against -- directly opposing ideas, heretical, destructive, ungodly ideas: that they were not created by God, or ANY God, and that their magnificence as human beings is not a special gift of an inspired deity but rather the chance outcome of trillions upon trillions of interactions among and between living things and their environments.
And furthermore, to add insult to injury, the scientists who made all this up refuse to even consider whether deity had a place in it! These famously open-minded 'scientific method' professors dismiss the idea out of hand!
I think I can empathize with both sides here, and I feel deeply the essential rift that divides those on both sides.
quote: FYI, I believe in ID. However, I think that evolution should absolutely be taught in schools, because it's such a popular and active subject matter.
FWIW, when I read 'I believe in ID,' I interpret it as 'I believe in God.' To a first approximation, I tend to understand that the person is saying "according to some pattern or other, which may or may not incorporate geologic time scales -- as opposed to literal Biblical time scales -- and may or may not accord with the specific teachings of any particular religion or sect, an entity that I recognize as a/the supreme being had or has some role in creating and/or guiding the development of corporeal life forms on earth..."
Is that fair?
Furthermore, in the context of this debate, I understand them to mean, usually, "... and no matter how internally consistent, or responsive to proof, or faithful to observation, evolutionary theory becomes, without acknowledging the influence of this supreme being, it will only ever be at best incomplete, and at worst an affront to my beliefs."
You apparently are a bit more liberal than this second part, since you will allow evolution to be taught for certain utilitarian benefits.
quote:...I think it should also be made clear that it's impossible to know, through science, whether creation was random chance or ID.
I would hope that students would be told, early and often, exactly what it is that is impossible to know, in any field. Then they would not waste time trying to know it, or asking questions about it, and devote themselves to more constructive pursuits.
That was tongue-in-cheek.
Actually, I don't know whether ID proponents would agree that it is impossible to know by any empirical means whatever (that is, outside of personal revelation, blind conviction, adherence to dogma, or some combination) whether creation was influenced by a master intellect supernaturally. I think they hope, and it sounds unfalsifiable to me, that one day it could be proven 'scientifically' that ID occurred.
But there is an infinity of such unfalsifiable conjectures, ranging from creation by a cosmic tortoise, to flying spaghetti monsters, to the idea that God created the universe just 7 seconds ago, including my post that you are reading and all our memories and all the fossils and everything.
What is science to do? Well, simple. Continue to study known, measurable, empirical, physical agencies, until they are all exhausted. Many times in history science has come to a point and said, "okay, we understand x, y, and z, but there is some other force at work here and we don't know what it is, some effect we are observing that has a cause that has not been identified." With sufficient study and sometimes advances in instruments or other developments, the cause is eventually understood.
My point here is not that science bestows any special 'knowability' on the great questions of life and the universe. It is that science embraces the unknown. That is why it is unclear to me what is different -- what is gained -- from acknowledging the inability of science to accept or reject ID as a factor in creation or evolution. So what? We go on just as before, taking each new unknown and and chipping away at it with conjecture, observation, and experiment.
I really can't think of a clearer statement of why ID doesn't belong in the science classroom. ID is not a conjecture proposed by scientists, nor would it or does it lead to any useful science, but rather, potentially forestalls useful science.
See my follow-on post in a new thread tomorrow on possible ID 'disclaimers' in public school science curricula.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to try to explain why people are so adamant about ID. It’s because they see how evolution has permeated our thinking, our points of view. Because whether or not the science of evolution says there is no God, it does imply it. It does say we are no different from the animals, we just happened to develop brains which allow us to solve problems and use speech. In short evolution takes away the soul.
Instead of a being who has an eternal soul we are the culmination of a whole bunch of random, yet productive, acts of chance. Laws aren’t decreed from God, they are simply the best system we have for keeping order in society. Instead of being held accountable for their actions, the only real reason anyone has to obey the law is fear of getting caught. Evolution has indirectly invaded every aspect of our culture and has changed our collective thinking. Most people don't notice this, they just accept Evolution as fact and keep going, but once you start looking for ways evolution has changed your point of view it becomes very hard to escape.
This is why people are fighting so hard to have some alternative taught to their children, or at least to be able to point to some holes in the theory. They want a way to raise their children with the point of view: there is a God, he created you and he has a plan for your life. I know many of you will say people can still raise their children with this point of view while having evolution taught and there are lots of people out there doing their best to do just this. But it is very hard to do when all of their children’s teachers and the scientific experts are telling them something, that while it does not directly contradict them, it does tend to lead to other conclusions.
Hopefully this makes some sort of sense.
All of this being said I don’t know what’s right ID or Evolution. I would have to agree most of ID’s arguments are rather vague and unscientific, but I can understand why people want to believe them.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How strange, then, that there are all sorts of people who think evolution is correct who believe in souls, and God, and many other such things.
Not to mention you perpetuate the already pointed-out misconception of evolution, that it says things happen because of randomness.
Perhaps people wouldn't feel such a need to oppose evolution if such misconceptions weren't continuously perpetuated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who's to say random mutations and everything that happens with evolution isn't directed by God? Evolution never states it is, or isn't. But it can't be proven or quantified, therefore it can't be scientifically considered.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, the atheistic viewpoint isn't nearly as depressing as you make it out to be. From evolution comes consciousness, and then self-awareness, and finally art? I think that's pretty incredible.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I typed out a big, long post about how the natural end of atheism is suicide, but I decided not to expand on it and just leave it at that.
I agree; a lot of misconceptions are definitely perpetuated. But it's ok... God loves us all anyway (Unless you're a Calvinist, then He doesn't love us all. But I won't get into that)
Edit: This is a post, not an email. I'm silly.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
Not-being-a-smart-alec question: can you explain the difference?
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vid: Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
Not-being-a-smart-alec question: can you explain the difference?
So, you don't really know what a nihilist is, but some of them did kill themselves once, so therefore atheists must naturally commit suicide because you think there's some connection between the two? And if nobody's ever "told" you the difference between them, how about trying a dictionary?
It doesn't seem surprising at all that you got a smart-alec answer to your (rather ridiculous) assertation.
quote: Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
There is a reason that the two words are pronounced and spelled completely differently. Nihilism is not atheism, although certainly all nihilists are also atheists. (Applying similar logic, one might erroneously claim that all Christians are Klansmen, on the grounds that all Klansmen are Christian.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheism is a prerequisite of nihilism -- all nihilists are atheists, but the reverse is not true. In any case, suicide is not the natural end of atheism or nihilism.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that had more to do with the social/political situation in Russia, rather than the fact that they were nihilists.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
