posted
Intelligent Design for me is that as far from "reasonable" the notion of an intelligent being being responsible for the universe and it's creation, order maintenance is...
The sheer numbers involved in the scientific "what are the chances of" when you look at a simple fruit tree, it's possiblity to produce a fruit that I may eat and be sustained by, and/or animals that also provide that sustenance, is SOOOOO astronomically HIGH (a computer may be able to someday take a full calculation of the chance of every "created/existing" item in the universe being there by CHANCE and simple evolution) that the CHANCE that there is a "Supreme Being" becomes very, very plausible.
EDIT: I assume this based on the scientific premise that man did not create the tree, seed or animals, and that vice-versa but that completely RANDOM (it has to be random because if you start talking LAWS and RULES you are talking about ORDER and ORGANIZATION and genesis of those laws, rules, orders and organizations) events in completely RANDOM, ORDERLESS form through billions/trillions of years (not nearly enough time to go from Random nothing to scientific order even on a one to one basis let alone every single item and element of the universe).
So intelligent design is the controversial scientific theory based on mathematical probability only as it's evidence(until you add GOD or RELIGION to the mix it's not THEOLOGY, which is where people oppose the Intelligent Design because the jump to the next step is not that big) as an explanation for the birth, growth, maintenance and order of the universe to it's current state.
posted
Weak anthropic principle. If those things hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to eat the fruit.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't even need the weak anthropic principle, at least not as the primary explanatory force. Fruit did not come about from just a roll of dice, there were many, simple, perfectly understandable dice rolls, and simple selection pressures happened to lead to fruit trees.
I can explain all the steps along the way without resorting to superior beings.
Oh, and to illustrate a basic problem with your attempt at logic:
Spin a number wheel -- the probability of the arrow pointing at any given number is precisely zero . . . yet it always points at a number when its done spinning!
posted
Why not? Are we PART of the Tree or is the Tree part of us? Did we come from the Tree or did the Tree come from us?
Are you saying that the probability is infinately SMALL that one single type of tree evolved separately, survived, spread (through the use of OTHER lifeforms at times I might add, complicating things even further) and happened to make fruit at some stage that just happened to be a stage in the human evolutionary cycle where we needed it to survive and comprehended that we could eat it and made the concious decision to do so? And that is just ONE type of tree and just us. No other animals included, etc. No other elements such as WATER or OXYGEN or MITOSIS or any other element existing.
You do realize that if the plants didn't make the oxygen, that there wouldn't be enough of it to make clouds, or to make water, or for us to live.
The "circle of life" on this planet is far, far, far, far, far, far, far to complex and intertwined to be RANDOM.
Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
To me, that's a far stretch and much less believable than Intelligent Design.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Intelligent Design for me is that as far from "reasonable" the notion of an intelligent being being responsible for the universe and it's creation, order maintenance is...
This part I can't parse at ALL.
As for the rest, "what are the chances" is a question no one can really answer. First you have to know how favorable conditions are across the universe for the formation of life, then divide that by the number of places where life actually arose. Since we don't really know the answer to either of those questions, it is just as irrational to assume the number is astronomically high as it is to assume it is relatively low.
We do know that there is life on this Earth. Science pretty well answers why life arose here as opposed to, say, Venus (which isn't to say it didn't arise there, but we can be relatively sure it hasn't survived there. The variety of life and the interactions between them, such as the food chain which you point out are very well explained by evolutionary theory. That there is life here and that it has evolved since it's introduction to the planet is also pretty well established scientifically.
The thing is, even if we discover life of some sort in trapped water on Mars, or on Europa, or Titan, or any planet we have the capability to explore, that won't change the Theistic Evolution/Atheistic Evolution debate at all. I'm not entirely sure that if we could produce life in a beaker in a laboratory that would end the debate. God will always hide in the margins of science for many people. That's what most of us mean by ID not being falsifiable, and therefore not science.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Spin a number wheel -- the probability of the arrow pointing at any given number is precisely zero . . . yet it always points at a number when its done spinning!
It must be magic.
I understand your thinking, but for all your explanation, can you tell me the absolute genesis of the rules that make it point to any thing at all?
Why does the smallest particle of the smallest piece of matter, obey a "law" or "rule" and where does that rule come from?
quote:Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
I point you again to the weak anthropic principle.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where the rules came from is a question for philosophy, one which is perfectly reasonable to answer with "God".
Science, however, just leaves such questions open. Intelligent Design supporters assert that the presence of a superior being is scientifically arguable, which is much stronger than saying that you think the rules come from a superior being (that is, God).
You haven't made any argument at all in support of ID, really, nothing you've stated has been a scientific argument, and thus can't be in support of ID, which is asserted to be a scientific theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that science also fails the "why" test when you go deep enough because the answer inevitably turns to "I/We don't know" whether to our own limits (why are there limits instead of limitless?) as humanthat poses.
Science is the theory of "why" that conficts itself and sometimes has "I/We don't know" as the answers, and those are acceptable, but unending.
And the funniest part of the debate is that it's human "logic" that is the "science". We use human "intelligence", rules, processes and thinking to the whole process.
Without humans, there is no science.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
To me, that's a far stretch and much less believable than Intelligent Design.
As I said above, science can account easily for why there is life on this planet and none (so far) discovered on any other in this solar system.
To me, that fact alone doesn't tip the debate one way or the other.
quote:Why does the smallest particle of the smallest piece of matter, obey a "law" or "rule" and where does that rule come from?
It just is?
Well, it's clear that those things do obey those laws. (Note here that by "law" we mean "description of the way things behave" not "law" like this is a rule you must obey. The difference may seem subtle, but it is important.
It is no more logical to believe God makes atoms obey his will than it is to believe they do what they do because that is the way the universe works all on its own.
quote:I understand your thinking, but for all your explanation, can you tell me the absolute genesis of the rules that make it point to any thing at all?
Can you? Seriously? If you say "God", then what makes him the absolute genesis? Where did God come from? Most Christians will answer "He just is". Why is it remotely more logical to believe a supreme being just popped into existence, but difficult to believe something far less complex came about by chance?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you're grossly misunderstanding science. Science only answers why in a naive sense -- that is, how. It doesn't try to answer any "ultimate questions" or metaphysical whys (like, "why do people cause other people pain?").
This doesn't make it useless, it merely makes its use restricted. In this case, the set of things science is useful for happen to be things usually directly relevant to the further development of technology and more science -- evolutionary science regularly leads to new developments in biotechnology and other fields of science.
Whether or not there's a God may be philosophically and personally relevant, but its not terribly relevant for the production of tools, to the development of complex thought about the basic operation of the universe, et cetera, so its not surprising it falls outside the purview of science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think our limited scope of the universe makes it pretty hard to understand probabilities. If there are billions of stars, then there are probably billions of planets. Then add the possibility of multiple universes, each possibly with different properties of physics. Why does this universe have the properties that we observe? It's possible that it could be entirely random. Every universe that pops up could have random laws of physics. This one just happens to have ones that are conducive to life. The fact is, it's impossible to know what's out there beyone our limited view of the universe, thus, it's impossible to know what's probable and improbable. For all we know, God could be a scientist in a laboratory that orchestrated this universe that we live in by creating his own personal black hole or something like that. So the chances of life having evolved from absolutely nothing is somewhere between very unlikely and very likely. There's really no way for us to know.
With that said, I believe in God. I'm happy with my belief, and I don't need some movement, or whatever people want to call it, to tell me what I believe. There are many people here that through their personal experiences have come to certain beliefs that contrast greatly with my own. Regardless, I'm still happy with my beliefs and my life. I don't expect others to change on account of me, and I don't have any expectation to change on account of them. I've been called irrational for believing in God, but at this point, I don't even care about that anymore.
It seems like these discussions never accomplish anything or change anyone's views anyway, so why even have them? It just seems to give a reason to disagree with someone else. Anyway, back to the debate. (which I can't seem to pull myself away from as much as I don't like how little it accomplishes)
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And who makes the human "rules" of science?
quote:Science, however, just leaves such questions open.
According to what universal bible of science? YOURS? Other limited humans?
Because Intelligent Design proposes a theory as an answer to those questions, what "greater than human" universal rules say that and WHERE did those rules come from? Man? A supreme being?
Again, Science is the HUMAN quest for the answer to WHY. Until science can answer every single why question, there is no absolute answer and therefore Intelligent Design is an alternative answer. Note the ALTERNATIVE.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is no more logical to believe God makes atoms obey his will than it is to believe they do what they do because that is the way the universe works all on its own.
I would put forth that it is no more illogical to believe Intelligent Design makes atoms obey laws created, ordered, maintained by it, whatever it is.
Absolutely in no way is the scientific absolute answer to "what is the beginning of it all" one thing as there is NO ANSWER in current science other than "We don't know". To the subsequent question of "Are there Theories" the answer is yes, multiple and Intelligent Design should not be excluded as an answer.
This is not the "Scientific Inquisition" or did we not learn anything from that type of intollerance? Or is Science as "ABSOLUTE" and not diverse or open as history teaches some other timetables to be?
Intelligent Design is a valid theory and it doesn't need to be discriminated against.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, yeah. Of course they do. Science is a human endeavor, so humans make the rules for it, and the set of rules chosen are ones that tend to work, if only for a limited (but well-understood) domain . . . which is why the rules were chosen as they were.
ID doesn't propose an answer to why, it proposes that God (in the form of a "superior being") be moved from the domain of why to "hows that we can test scientifically, at least indirectly".
Science doesn't try to answer even one big why question, much less all of the why questions, and doesn't even have a concept of an absolute answer. That's right, in science there are no absolute answers, because science is based on independent observations of the world, which are necessarily inexact.
ID as argued by its major supporters is not some alternative to science, it is argued that it is science.
To quote the "Intelligent Design Network"
quote:he theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Amusingly enough, their characterization of evolutionary theory is laughably incorrect. Note the "ID is thus a scientific disagreement . . ." They clearly intend for ID to be considered a part of science, not an alternative to it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may (emphasis on may) be valid in the colloquial sense of "theory", but its hardly valid in the sense of a scientific theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amusingly enough, their characterization of evolutionary theory is laughably incorrect. Note the "ID is thus a scientific disagreement . . ." They clearly intend for ID to be considered a part of science, not an alternative to it.
It's alternative to it because the shakiness of it's theory judged by what UNIVERSAL standards of science? (which don't exist because science is a HUMAN endeavor limited by HUMAN LOGIC and ABILITY)
Your using the "Gays can't be married because they don't fit the definition of married" argument as if it's absolute.
Science is NOT absolute but you are attempting to make it so by exlcusion. Or are you arguening that Science does not allow for ID because it has the absolute answer to the infinte WHY? It has THEORIES and EVIDENCE that's it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not that the theory's shaky or not, its that the theory's not scientific, which requires it meet certain standards.
Specifically, it would require there to be tests we can run that would increase or decrease confidence in the existence of a superior being as described by the theory. Would you care to propose such a test? I've never seen one proposed by ID proponents.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for showing up, CStroman. (And, everyone, let's treat our lone representative of the other side nicely. It doesn't hurt.)
I hope you'll back away from this, CStroman: Until science can answer every single why question, there is no absolute answer and therefore Intelligent Design is an alternative answer.
The argument from ignorance. But I think your standard is way too high. I could say, "Until science can answer every single why question" -- that is, forever, since science will never be able to do this -- "my theory that everything I see is because the CIA is sending thought waves into my head, is an alternative answer." And it will be. It just won't be a good one. I would need to establish that the CIA theory is reasonable; you'd need to establish that ID is reasonable.
Now, I get the thing about astronomically low probabilities of a particular event (such as, say, the formation of life on Earth). But if there are enough instances, it doesn't mean that the likelihood of life on earth is very low. I'll pull these numbers out of the air (I was hoping an ID advocate would have them; I don't):
Suppose P(life forming in a given instance) = 10^-100,000 Suppose # instances on earth= 10^1,000,000
Then the expected value of the number of times it will form on Earth is 10. The probability in one case was astronomically small, but we still should expect it to happen eventually.
We'd need some real numbers to determine if this is the case. I don't think we've got any.
Recommended reading (for all): Rare Earth. The authors argue that macroscopic life will be rare in the universe, because the stability of Earth's climate will be too hard to come by. (Microbes, they think, will be much more common, because they don't require a stable climate; they can exist in rock.) I'm not sure they convinced me, but it was interesting.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Brings back a fond memory of my college days, lo these many years ago (really--about 25 years ago!)
I took a course in the "Philosophy of Religion." I was the only one on the class who was not coming in from a "Liberal Arts" background. In case you're new here (or in case I'm just not as important as I think I am), I'm an engineer.
It was like shooting ducks in a barrel. All the famous syllogisms, assumptions, claims, etc., were so full of holes as not to be funny.
Anselm's "Perfect Island." Pascal's wager. Any number of "Blind Watchmaker" claims. Basic assumptions were unsupportable, logical connections, well, weren't.
"If "A" and if "B", then "C""
Well, "A" wasn't true, and "B" doesn't matter, and even if they were both true, then the connection that was claimed would be non-causal.
Here's my point:
Teach philosophy as philosophy, first. Then teach logic. And then teach I_D in your philosophy class. Only be prepared to have it ripped apart.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, "A" wasn't true, and "B" doesn't matter, and even if they were both true, then the connection that was claimed would be non-causal.
It is truly astonishing to me how many "great thinkers," particularly in theological philosophy, left enormous holes through which pretty much any three-year-old could drive a logic truck.
My favorite is this one:
"God must exist because we can imagine something perfect. And in order for something to be really perfect, it can't be only imaginary; it would have to actually exist in order to be perfect. So God exists, because He wouldn't be perfect if He didn't."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is truly astonishing to me how many "great thinkers," particularly in theological philosophy, left enormous holes through which pretty much any three-year-old could drive a logic truck.
Interestingly, ID theorists find the same thing astonishing about the theory of evolution, while evolution proponents feel the same way about ID.
What I find interesting is how often critics of various theories claim there are obvious giant holes in these theories, yet can't seem to prove it to everyone else. It is always interesting in any philosophy class how many people, from every viewpoint, believe that they have blown holes through every opposing argument, only to find they haven't really convinced anyone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is always interesting in any philosophy class how many people, from every viewpoint, believe that they have blown holes through every opposing argument, only to find they haven't really convinced anyone.
Are you saying that you see no flaws in the "God exists because perfect things must exist" theory, Tres? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, so long as supporters of ID routinely misquote evolutionary theorists and talk about it being possible to calculate the likelihood of life evolving from the probability of particular combinations of base pairs coming together if randomly sequenced, I have little problem recalling why I tend to agree with which side's arguments, even leaving aside my own understandings thereof.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I think about evolution, I have to say to myself.
Could all of this be the result of a random explosion and macro-evolution? Could everything be made perfect for human life on this plant just be luck or survival of the fittest? Would want there not God and just be evolved monkey? My answer to these has to be, no. The chances that we would be here and would have evolved this way have to be astronomical. Why would earth be so perfect for us if not created by God. And life would be pointless without God, there would be no reason to live.
Now I am not a genius so I know that there are holes in what I just said but from what I know there is more evidence that God is really then the hypothesis of evolution.
My two cents.
Edit: I'm sorry I have bad spelling, English is my first language but I was tired and didn't think through what I was typing down. Its quite clear that I don't have the knowledge to debate this subject with all of you.
posted
First, I don't even know what an "explonse" is. Second, if you think this planet's perfect for humans, I think a few humans living in inhospitable climes have some words for you. Third, evolutionary theory doesn't deny God at all.
I mean, your whole dichotomy is completely false: its perfectly possible for there to be God and evolution, and huge numbers of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and members of other religions accept that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the feeling that English isn't Vasslia's first language, so maybe ease up on that.
Vasslia, you've got evolution backwards. According to the theory, humans evolved to fit conditions on Earth. We didn't exist before the Earth and then come along and find it perfectly suited for us. Mutations resulted in species that worked well in the environment, thus resulting in a whole mess of species that fit really well into the conditions on Earth. We are one of those species. Acting surprised that the Earth fits us so well is sort of like being amazed that a Jello mold fits the Jello you took out of it so well.
Also, to the many people who don't believe in anything like the God you do, statements like this:
quote:And life would be pointless without God, there would be no reason to live.
betray your moral and spiritual immaturity. It makes me sad for the potential you throw away by looking at the world and meaning that way. That's not something I could picture a non-evil deity wanting it's followers to believe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Vasslia, you've got evolution backwards. According to the theory, humans evolved to fit conditions on Earth. We didn't exist before the Earth and then come along and find it perfectly suited for us. Mutations resulted in species that worked well in the environment, thus resulting in a whole mess of species that fit really well into the conditions on Earth. We are one of those species. Acting surprised that the Earth fits us so well is sort of like being amazed that a Jello mold fits the Jello you took out of it so well.
Science fiction writers, for example Larry Niven, have suggested that we did NOT evolve on Earth, and present as evidence the fact that humans are unable to live in most environments on Earth without minimal technology, therefore that the Earth is certainly not perfectly suited to humans.
We freeze in the cold climates, or at least quickly die of exposure, without clothing, shelter, and fire.
In hotter climes, we (at least caucasians) cannot take the UV exposure in ordinary sunlight, and must have clothes and hats, and hopefully sunscreen and mosquito nets. Plus dehydration and sunstroke, without clothes or water bottles.
In all climates, without weapons or helpers we are easy prey to the dominant predators.
And et cetera.
So, Terrans are actually extra-Terrestrial in origin. This has become something of a sci-fi cliche.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Science fiction writers, for example Larry Niven, have suggested that we did NOT evolve on Earth, and present as evidence the fact that humans are unable to live in most environments on Earth without minimal technology, therefore that the Earth is certainly not perfectly suited to humans.
Of course, the obvious retort to this is that as humans began to supplement fur and claws with clothes and weapons the former became evolutionarily unnecessary. Over time those characteristics were bred out. This could have been excelerated as humans began to take note of their own sentience and began seeing all other animals as something intrinsically different from themselves. Humans might then have developed concepts of beauty and desirability that included those budding human traits that were most un-animal-like (i.e. less body hair or less claw-like nails, etc). Those humans who displayed more "human" characteristics would have been selected as mates over those who didn't until we arrived at the techno-dependant species we are today.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I know there are evolutionary arguments to the ET origin theory. You state them well.
Maybe I find the idea has a pull for the same reasons some kids like to believe they're orphans, and really adopted princes or princesses. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now I am not a genius so I know that there are holes in what I just said but from what I know there is more evidence that God is really then the hypothis of evolution.
And from what I know, Eskimos do not exist -- because I've never met one.
Sure, some people claim to have encountered them, but why should I trust those people?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only that, but there's no reason humans should be well-adapted to all of the earth, just that we be sufficiently adapted to one region of the earth, where the population of humans developed. That we've happened to adapt to other places with tools is a coincidental bonus.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Additionally, there are places on Earth (like parts of Brazil) where one could live with zero technology, provided you were willing to subsist on raw wild plants and raw insects and small animals. However, one of the peculiar facets of being human is that we prefer to avoid the discomforts of animalistic subsistence living. Since we had the intelligence to do so, most of it was put towards ameliorating those discomforts and using tools to increase our likelihood of survival. This allowed us to move into regions of the Earth where survival would be much more difficult if not impossible without the aids of technology.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that the Earth does NOT fit us particularly well, unless you include our technology. And our technology, before the 20th century, only very gradually improved.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interestingly, ID theorists find the same thing astonishing about the theory of evolution, while evolution proponents feel the same way about ID.
Tres, your incessant pseudo-impartiality is really starting to grate. All theories are not created equal and do not deserve equal consideration. Furthermore, that a bunch of people happen to believe something does not make that something worthy of scientific consideration. Engineers should not consider alien tractor beams when they design bridges, either, as you ludicrously insinuated on the other thread.
I also note you never answered my question on that thread: If alien tractor beams are as valid a principle of bridge design as the principles of civil engineering, why does nobody build functional bridges based on alien tractor beam theory? Why do bridges constructed using civil engineering principles tend to stand and bear load in accordance with their design? Civil engineering principles get results; alien tractor beam theory does not. Alien tractor beam theory, compared to civil engineering principles, has no value. Engineers and scientists shouldn't even give it the time of day, and they don't.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is that the Earth does NOT fit us particularly well, unless you include our technology. And our technology, before the 20th century, only very gradually improved.
I agree with you. However, I believe that is so largely because we humans have made ourselves this way. I'm only responding to point this out, not because I disagree with you, but because this is an ID discussion thread and as such I want to provide counterpoint to what some might point to as "evidence" of another "hole" in evolutionary theory. (Not that you are one of those people.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Case in point: the Tacoma Narrows bridge (the first one: Galloping Gerty) was built with alien tractor beam technology. At the same time, it was noted as having a definite Bridginess defecit. You can see the results:
quote: All theories are not created equal and do not deserve equal consideration. Furthermore, that a bunch of people happen to believe something does not make that something worthy of scientific consideration.
Your arguement sounds soo, soo much like the arguements against introducing science in the classroom back in the day. Really any arguement going against "the norm".
Really, there is no "bible" of science, and there is no God or supreme science rule maker.
Should we discriminate against scientists who look at the same set of data and have a different theory as to it's origin?
Regardless of your scientific "beliefs" there is very much evidence of ID and it is in the basic ORDER of the universe from the most miniscule to the grandest scheme. You may dismiss it in favor of YOUR scientific beliefs, and that's fine, but who says ONE particular scientists BELIEFS are the LAW and another's are invalid when NEITHER can be proved as absolute.
This thread is starting to stink more and more of Religiophobe intollerance of varying scientific theory.
It's funny how "dismissive" the ANTI-Intelligent Design folks are simply due to their own formed beliefs on science. Since they believe in certain theories and they accept certain evidence of those theories, that opposing theories are invalid or can't be true or don't deserve scientific research. That or their own fear and antagonism of religion are clouding their logic and causing them to be closed minded.
And to calm those fears you have the Supreme Court and the wall they erected between church and state to protect you and the fact that Intelligent Design (not divine design) is in fact not Religion.
But "Oh Nos! It may lead someone to investigate religion" which holds as much water as "Sex Ed may lead kids to have sex" just so long as the Religion doesn't come into play in the classroom.
Just because there exits one theory in science that the majority of scientists hold to be true in their beliefs, doesn't mean it's the only one or that it makes others invalid (Man that sounds so much like the birth of Protestantism from Catholicism only with Science).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your arguement sounds soo, soo much like the arguements against introducing science in the classroom back in the day.
Wow. I didn't realize you grew up in Alabama. Or do you in fact predate science?
quote: Should we discriminate against scientists who look at the same set of data and have a different theory as to it's origin?
No. But we should make sure they're scientists. I don't understand why you're having a problem getting this concept, Chad. Do you not understand why Intelligent Design is not in fact a scientific theory and should not be taught as science? That's been the point of the thread; it's been explained several times.
I know you're late to the thread, so I'll ask quite bluntly whether you've actually read it or not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:cstroman wrote: And the funniest part of the debate is that it's human "logic" that is the "science". We use human "intelligence", rules, processes and thinking to the whole process.
I agree. And the funniest aspect of this by far is that it is Intelligent Design that carves out what is understandable and believable, and the rest -- anything that to a few limited human minds seems just too mind-boggling unlikely -- MUST have been created or influenced by an intentional supernatural force.
ID proponents do not seem to consider that their understanding could be at all limited -- and that it could, therefore, be improved.
"This phenomenon could not have arisen from any known process that I can perceive, therefore it must have been God."
This reasoning tells me that the speaker considers that they are indeed capable of perceiving and understanding everything up to the point where God takes over.
This is either a grotesquely arrogant point of view, or seriously demeans God.
Science, at least, recognizes just how weak and ignorant we humans are, and says, "This phenomenon could not have arisen from any known process that I can perceive; I better polish my spectacles, put on my thinking cap, and see if I can advance knowledge by figuring some little bit of it out."
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
