quote:Can you name some valid scientific facts or conclusions that you think religion should trump?
The the earth is billions of years old? That AIDS is caused by a virus? That drinking poisons can kill you?
What exactly did you have in mind?
Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
This is a bigger issue for those who assume the Bible and/or the church is infallible in some way, because they'd have to conclude the Bible and/or church trumps science whenever they disagree. I don't consider either of those to be infallible, so there are fewer cases where it would make sense for me to consider science trumped by religion.
As I said, whether or not it makes any sense to think in that fashion is something for philosophy and religion to figure out.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science only says Jesus could not have performed his miracles absent supernatural (which is definitionally outside of science) intervention.
Since presumably you believe he did those miracles supernaturally, science doesn't contradict anything about those beliefs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
By that argument, Norse Mythology trumps Science, because science has never found the rainbow bridge to Valhalla. Star Trek also trumps science, because science doesn't know how to teleport people, and Star Trek does.
Those things aren't "trumping" science. You're just saying that you're willing to ignore science in certain circumstances, for no reason except that you prefer to believe otherwise.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design. ... Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
So if I understand correctly, you don't believe in the watchmaker hypothesis, you believe that God takes an active role in day to day affairs.
At the same time though, you seem to be sure that there is nothing "supernatural" involved, that God works completely within the bounds of nature, having, "power over the elements" as you say.
My difficulty then, is if God only works through natural processes, how is it possible to find any evidence of God? Natural processes are natural, by definition. Gravity always pulls things at the same rate, nerve fibers fire with the same intensity, water takes the same amount of heat to boil.
If all these things are constant, how is there any room for some unknown force to guide them? If I pour boiling water on my foot, and pray to God for help, a God who works within the natural processes cannot do anything, because gravity is going to make the water fall, the temperature is going to burn my foot, and so on.
If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
I'm not saying anything about evidence of God's existence here; that's another discussion. I'm just saying that God can certainly work within the natural laws to produce the results he wants. He is not limited by our understanding of them.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this was the thread I was refering to earlier.
2009:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
2005:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: 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).
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
My point is that we can actually see a baker or chemist doing this work. Where do we see God putting something together and mixing it up?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Normally I don't like to give Tres any credit, since he's my lesser half, but I will say that in this case the 2005 quote is actually more accurate. What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution. Hence there's no scientific reason to accept it over evolution.
I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, tres is dead wrong. ID is not supported at ALL by science, whereas evolution is. Id isn't falsifiable, so its not supported by any evidence, scientifically speaking.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres seems to still be incorrectly conflating theistic evolution with intelligent design.
Theistic evolution is the religious belief that evolutionary theory was caused by (and even possibly guided by, in some sense) God; often this boils down to a conviction that God invokes the natural world.
Intelligent design is an assertion that the scientific evidence shows evolution could not have occurred without intervention from some "super intelligence".
That is not supported by evidence that supports evolution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
My point is that we can actually see a baker or chemist doing this work. Where do we see God putting something together and mixing it up?
Here we come back to a pretty well-worn Hatrack discussion topic. I obviously don't have an answer that will satisfy you. It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Normally I don't like to give Tres any credit, since he's my lesser half, but I will say that in this case the 2005 quote is actually more accurate. What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution. Hence there's no scientific reason to accept it over evolution.
I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Okay. I retract my point: Tres hasn't learned anything in the last 4 years.
In fact, I'll even start calling you Xapo. Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
That just sounds like hand waving to me. I understand believing in God on faith. I don't understand the desire to claim that there's actually some evidence for God, but then being unwilling to actually describe, search for, or even account for that "evidence."
That sort of wishy-washy idea of what constitutes evidence or proof is what encourages people to say ID is reasonable science.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you name some valid scientific facts or conclusions that you think religion should trump?
The the earth is billions of years old? That AIDS is caused by a virus? That drinking poisons can kill you?
What exactly did you have in mind?
Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
Or is it only okay for religious beliefs you like to trump the facts, and not religious beliefs you disagree with?
quote:This is a bigger issue for those who assume the Bible and/or the church is infallible in some way, because they'd have to conclude the Bible and/or church trumps science whenever they disagree.
No. Believing that one's hopes and wishes trump reality is a problem found everywhere you find human nature. It's just that when people tack the word "religious" to their hopes and wishes, lots of people think its a virtue.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread."
Didn't you notice when it was pointed out that creationism and ID are the same thing? The latter is just warmed over creationism, wearing clothes the proponents hope look sciencey.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
That just sounds like hand waving to me. I understand believing in God on faith. I don't understand the desire to claim that there's actually some evidence for God, but then being unwilling to actually describe, search for, or even account for that "evidence."
That sort of wishy-washy idea of what constitutes evidence or proof is what encourages people to say ID is reasonable science.
I haven't been claiming in this discussion that there is scientific evidence for God, and therefore I haven't backed down on any promise for that evidence. I'm sorry if I gave the impression otherwise. For the record, I am also not a supporter of ID.
Edit: That sounded stupid, didn't it? I'll have time to write a better response later. I don't mean to kill the conversation.
[ February 12, 2009, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution.
Hold on, hold on. What do you thnk the definition of ID is, anyway?
I'm using the definition found in the ID textbook authored by one of the founders of ID, Dembski.
Do you think that this is a bad source?
Are you actually arguing that the biological data of genetics and fossils show that definition to be an accurate description of biology?
quote:I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Conflating them too much?
I have an idea. Consult the Creationist textbook "Of Panda's and People", as it existed in 1983. Then consult the definition of ID as it existed in the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" after 1987.
Bring back both definitions, and tell us all about how unfair it is to "conflate" them.
You'll find all the info you need on the "Of Pandas and People" Wiki
posted
Woah.... a bit of time travel going on in this thread...
quote:Actually, tres is dead wrong. ID is not supported at ALL by science, whereas evolution is. Id isn't falsifiable, so its not supported by any evidence, scientifically speaking.
In the thread that was linked to, I argued macroevolution, as a historical theory, and intelligent design are both unfalsifiable. I don't think we'd need to go into the same arguments here.
quote:Tres seems to still be incorrectly conflating theistic evolution with intelligent design.
Theistic evolution is the religious belief that evolutionary theory was caused by (and even possibly guided by, in some sense) God; often this boils down to a conviction that God invokes the natural world.
Intelligent design is an assertion that the scientific evidence shows evolution could not have occurred without intervention from some "super intelligence".
If that's how you're using the terms, then yes.
quote:Hold on, hold on. What do you thnk the definition of ID is, anyway?
I'm using the definition found in the ID textbook authored by one of the founders of ID, Dembski.
Which definition would you like to use? I'm perfectly fine using the one fugu just gave, although it wasn't the definition I was using in 2005.
But, I should also point out that fugu's definition above definitely is not identical to creationism.
quote:Woah.... a bit of time travel going on in this thread...
Sheesh... I'm trying to make a pragmatic argument about education here, Tres, and now you've gone and confused things. Go take your arguments back to 2005 where they belong....
quote:Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
As I said, I'm okay with schools promulgating the view that whether or not science can be trumped by religion is a question to be resolved in the realm of philosophy and politics, and that scientists should be looking only at what they can conclude within the boundaries of science. I didn't say schools should promulgate anything beyond that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Which definition would you like to use? I'm perfectly fine using the one fugu just gave, although it wasn't the definition I was using in 2005.
I think it's safer to stick with the definitions used by the founder of the movement, so that people don't start arguing against strawmen.
To paraphrase, it's that modern organisms appeared out of nothing, with all their features completely mature. No transitions through evolution.
Are you arguing that this is unfalsifiable? Or that the evidence supports this?
quote:Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
As I said, I'm okay with schools promulgating the view that whether or not science can be trumped by religion is a question to be resolved in the realm of philosophy and politics, and that scientists should be looking only at what they can conclude within the boundaries of science.
So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
Let's say that you had an inter-racial child in school, and someone eles'e kid had a religious belief that your mongrel kid wasn't really human, and therefore, shouldn't be in school, espeically not in the same classroom as the human kids. And that this was one of those cases where political and religious beliefs trump science, that the non-humanity of your kid is obvious from their religious texts, but beyond the capacity of science to ken.
Do you really think that the teacher should say "Well, Xaposert Jr, this may be one of those times where we're outside the boundaries of science. Your classmate has decided that his religious beleifs trump science, and I can't say he's wrong in this case"?
Once you decide to open the door to politically and religiously motivated nonsense to "trump" the facts of physical reality, where do you stop?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In the thread that was linked to, I argued macroevolution, as a historical theory, and intelligent design are both unfalsifiable. I don't think we'd need to go into the same arguments here.
Macroevolution, as a historical theory, is absolutely falsifiable.
If we find modern human skeletons in the same time period as dinosaurs, we've falsified it. The same goes for any number of ways we can show that the current evolutionary theory is clearly wrong, and we need to come up with a better model.
You are right that ID is unfalsifiable, because no matter what we find, ID can just claim that it was made from scratch that way.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ID can be falsified in only one way--that of the religion it is trying to promote.
In the Bible, it states the the world was made in 7 days by a creator.
If you believe in the Bible literally, you can not believe in anything that makes creation lasting more than 7 days.
If you believe literally in the Bible you also must believe in other things--Jesus, Noah's Flood, and that it is a sin to "Bear false witness."
You also must believe in Satan, and that he uses lies and fraud to entice people into sin.
The founders and the literature of ID have stated that they are not Creationism in disguise, but that they are a form of science neutral on the point of religion.
Things like the "Of Panda's and People" story and comments made by those same founders prove that ID is a front for Creationism.
ID is based on lies.
It is a fraud and a illusion used to promote a religion that denounces fraud and illusion. It confuses people of faith with false demons to fight, when they should be fighting real issues and real problems.
People are hungry and sick and need a hand. But ID wants you to spend your time arguing politics and school lessons and counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.
ID uses false-hood, deception, political maneuvering.
ID uses the tools of Satan.
Hence, ID is Satanic and for the souls of our children, should not be allowed anywhere near our schools.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
No, that's not my view. My view is that the educators should in that case say "Sure, it might be possible for a religious belief to trump a scientific belief in some cases, but neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
quote:Once you decide to open the door to politically and religiously motivated nonsense to "trump" the facts of physical reality, where do you stop?
I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
My personal view is that it is up to our human judgement where you stop. But that is beyond anything schools should be teaching. Students need to know that the scope of science is not limitless and that scientists must limit themselves to the rules of the scientific method, but its not the job of the school to tell students how they are supposed to relate and/or reconcile scientific conclusions with their religious or other beliefs.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
No, that's not my view. My view is that the educators should in that case say "Sure, it might be possible for a religious belief to trump a scientific belief in some cases, but neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
Let me get this straight.
these beliefs:
Drinking poison is safe for believers Jewish people have horns black people are not quite human
Those beliefs you would respond to with: "neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
But would you actually want the school to respond the same way to these religious beliefs?
That Moses parted the sea That Joshua made the sun stand still for a day That Peter walked on water.
I think not. I repeat my question: do you have any reason, aside from your personal religious preference, for shooting down the first set, and priviliging the second set?
quote:I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
So basically, I can make up whatever wildly false belief I like, have my kids spout it all day long at school, and you think that the school really should say nothing, so long as I say it's backed by "religious evidence"?
So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
And if my kid gets your kid to drink Draino, while the teacher watches, the teacher is right to stand by and do nothing, because my kid's convinced your kid that the religious evidence trumps the scientific evidence, and the teacher has to respect that choice?
quote:My personal view is that it is up to our human judgement where you stop. But that is beyond anything schools should be teaching.
So pass the Draino 'round, kids. If your human judgement says it's okay, it must be. Because allowing human judgment to trump the evidence always works out well. Teenagers have such great judgment, you know.
quote:its not the job of the school to tell students how they are supposed to relate and/or reconcile scientific conclusions with their religious or other beliefs.
No, it's not. I think that it's the job of schools to make sure that students learn accurate facts, and how to reason from facts to conclusions. You seem to think that students should be absolved from accepting facts they don't like, and should be trained in the impeccable logic of "If you don't like the conclusions drawn from real facts, make up your own, call them religious evidence, and believe whatever you like".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I wish that people who deny evolution would do without all the scientific breakthroughs that have come about as a result of the understanding of evolution. I have a feeling that would change their mind pretty quickly.
I mean, nobody denies gravity, because if you jump head first out of a 3rd floor window and doubt gravity, you still break you neck.
Perhaps if people realized all the things we've learned as a result of evolutionary theory, they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as false, when it's clearly highly useful.
There are certainly no health or medical advances which have come about as a result of anyone believing ID.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
For the second time, I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
There's also nothing arbitrary about the difference between telling students they can't drink poison and allowing students to believe Moses parted the sea if that is their belief. I think there's obviously clear, strong evidence (of many kinds) that drinking poison will result in medical emergencies in schools.
quote:So basically, I can make up whatever wildly false belief I like, have my kids spout it all day long at school, and you think that the school really should say nothing, so long as I say it's backed by "religious evidence"?
No, why do you keep asserting I'm saying people should make up wildly false beliefs? No, I don't think that.
quote:So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
No, I didn't say that.
quote: And if my kid gets your kid to drink Draino, while the teacher watches, the teacher is right to stand by and do nothing, because my kid's convinced your kid that the religious evidence trumps the scientific evidence, and the teacher has to respect that choice?
No, again I didn't say that either. Read what I wrote in my posts. For convenience, here it is again: "If taught correctly, I'd think it should teach them that religion can trump science, but whether it does so is a question for philosophy and politics to work out; within science, science must abide by the rules that allow it to be so effective, making evolution the conclusion that scientists must accept in their models."
This is what I'm saying. Don't make up other crazy things and assert I'm saying those too, because I'm not. There is nothing in the above statement about making up false beliefs or being able to trump reality. There is nothing about teachers being forbidden from stopping students from violating school policy by doing things like drinking poison. There is nothing about teachers not being allowed to correct students.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
For the second time, I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
How is this different? If my kid convinces your kid that he can drink Draino if his faith is strong enough, that's belief based on the religious evidence of the Bible. It's totally contradicted by the scientific evidence but according to you, there's nothing objectionable in rejecting that conclusion in favor of what the Bible clearly states, and teachers should be teaching that this is okay to do.
quote:There's also nothing arbitrary about the difference between telling students they can't drink poison and allowing students to believe Moses parted the sea if that is their belief.
Why not? Both are cases where the religous 'evidence', the text of the Bible, says that people can part water by magic, and that believers can't be poisoned. The only difference I see is that you personally accept one, but not the other.
quote:I think there's obviously clear, strong evidence (of many kinds) that drinking poison will result in medical emergencies in schools.
But the religious evidence trumps that scientific evidence, remember? It's your own argument!
quote:No, why do you keep asserting I'm saying people should make up wildly false beliefs? No, I don't think that.
But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
quote:So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
No, I didn't say that.[/quote]
Of couse you didn't. But it's the inescapable result of your argument. If you get to have your irrational wishes treated as valid beliefs, then it's hypocritical not to treat other people's irrational wishes as valid beleifs. And yes, that puts you in the position of respecting repugnant and heinous things, but that's the end result of your argument. Simply saying "I didn't say that" doesn't change that fact.
quote:This is what I'm saying. Don't make up other crazy things and assert I'm saying those too, because I'm not.
But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not. A lame "Well, my irrational beliefs based on the text of the Bible and my 'personal judgement' are fine, yours equally based in the Bible and your 'personal judgement' are not". is hardly convincing.
I think that, in the end, it's what you really believe, but it doesn't make for a logical, reasonable argument.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not.
No, most of them are inescapable consequences of things you claim I'm saying but that I'm not saying. Most of them are also based on your assumption that religion is irrational. Neither I nor most people would agree with that assumption.
quote:But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
Because just saying that is not enough. I didn't say "religion can trump science whenever a religious person wants it to". I said whether or not religious evidence trumps scientific evidence in any given instance is a matter for philosophy and politics to decide.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not.
No, most of them are inescapable consequences of things you claim I'm saying but that I'm not saying.
But you can't explain why I'm wrong, can you? Your bald assertions that I am is not convincing.
quote:Most of them are also based on your assumption that religion is irrational. Neither I nor most people would agree with that assumption.
I'm not assuming anything. You named some irrational thing that you believe trumps the scientific evidence. Well, I named a bunch of other beliefs that people hold that they also think trumps the scientific evidence. Why is it okay for you to do that, and not other people?
quote:
quote:But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
Because just saying that is not enough.
Why not? And anyway, it's not just "saying so". The lines about drinking poison are in the Bible. Now, my decision to treat the Bible as "religious evidence" is based only on my "say-so", but once you start on the path of "religious evidence trumps real evidence", then you can't go around saying what is and isn't real "religious evidence" because you've thrown away the only possible yardstick you're ever going to have. So unless you are going to be a naked hypocrite, and say "my religious evidence is good, yours are stupid lies", then you have to accept whatever "religious evidence" is offered.
quote:I didn't say "religion can trump science whenever a religious person wants it to". I said whether or not religious evidence trumps scientific evidence in any given instance is a matter for philosophy and politics to decide.
So let's say that you are Jewish, and you are running against some other parent for a position on the school board.
The other parent wants to win, so he starts saying that all Jews are born with horns, and eat Christian babies. Of course, the scientific evidence obviously demonstrates this to be false, but it's "religious evidence" and the political reaons for believing it are quite clear. And it happens to match the parent's philosophy too.
Yes, yes, you'll say that this wasn't what you had in mind, even though it's exctly what you wrote...people, trumping observed reality for "religious evidence" when the political situation merits it, and their personal philosophy agrees.
It's a recipe for disaster, as any intelligent person can see. Why keep defending it?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you can't explain why I'm wrong, can you?
I'd just point back to my previous posts - I think they already explain what I am saying, and why the stuff you are attacking is not what I am saying.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sometimes I wish that people who deny evolution would do without all the scientific breakthroughs that have come about as a result of the understanding of evolution. I have a feeling that would change their mind pretty quickly.
I mean, nobody denies gravity, because if you jump head first out of a 3rd floor window and doubt gravity, you still break you neck.
Perhaps if people realized all the things we've learned as a result of evolutionary theory, they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as false, when it's clearly highly useful.
There are certainly no health or medical advances which have come about as a result of anyone believing ID.
This assumes that ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe they are. You can believe in evolution and believe that it was intelligently designed. What you can't do is believe in ID and believe in random selection. And you can't believe in evolution and believe in creationism. Both of those are separate from evolution and intelligent design.
I'm not saying I believe in evolution or intelligent design. But they don't inherently conflict.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When ID tries to push evolution out of science class is when they become mutually exclusive. Also, to say that ID isn't the same as creationism is working with a different version of ID than the one people want taught in school.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are making a false assumption if you believe there is one unified theory of intelligent design. It is as varied as the differing views on evolution.
I'll admit, I was taught both evolution and ID in school by my biology teacher. The version taught to us centered around the theories of Michael Behe and irreducible complexity. I'm not suggesting those theories are legitimate. But they aren't creationism.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: This assumes that ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe they are.
Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
quote:And you can't believe in evolution and believe in creationism. Both of those are separate from evolution and intelligent design.
Here's the definition of Creationism from a textbook:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Doesn't sound differnt from Intelligent Design at all, does it?
And you think that Behe is advocating some kind of ID different from the version in the ID text I quoted?
Please, please ask me who wrote the blood-clotting section of that textbook.
quote:Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
What I'm saying is that intelligent design can't have a real founder, at least not in the way you are arguing. Some proponents of intelligent design are creationists, maybe even most. But that isn't necessary to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design, simply the idea that life was designed by an intellect, be it aliens, God, multiple gods, or Jedi doesn't inherently demand a belief in creationism.
I was just using Behe as an example. The parts of his theories I was presented with discussed the intelligent design of certain microorganisms, and how this was different from the gradual development of multicellular organisms. Again, not saying any of it's right. But it was arguing against random selection, not evolution (and they are different).
There seems to be an assumption that ID is some kind of centralized force. Theories, even flawed unscientific ones, are never like that. It's like arguing evolution today isn't really evolution because it's no longer Darwinian. Yes, Darwin developed the theory, but many people have added and altered it. Many people today continue to argue its mechanisms. It's still evolution though.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:ID is not science After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
ID is the progeny of creationism The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.
quote:Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
What I'm saying is that intelligent design can't have a real founder, at least not in the way you are arguing.
ID is a political movement, and political movements have founders. But why do you think that what you wrote is a response to what you quoted?
quote:But that isn't necessary to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design, simply the idea that life was designed by an intellect, be it aliens, God, multiple gods, or Jedi doesn't inherently demand a belief in creationism.
But it's not simply that. Read what ID advocates write. They aren't limiting their claims to "some warm and fuzzy somebody designed the mammalian ear". They write "Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
You want to be a theistic evolutionist, fine. But don't think that the political movement of ID is about that. The evidence shows that they aren't.
quote:I was just using Behe as an example. The parts of his theories I was presented with discussed the intelligent design of certain microorganisms, and how this was different from the gradual development of multicellular organisms.
And his conclusions were presented as well-respected scientific conclusions? They are quite the reverese, you know that, right? That the bacterial flagella is descneded from the type 3 secretory system? That lots of organisms get on fine missing parts of the blood clotting cascade that he deemed indispensable?
quote:Again, not saying any of it's right. But it was arguing against random selection, not evolution (and they are different).
"Random selection"? The whole point of selection is that it's not completely random. Perhaps throwing around your own example as an okay way to educate people is not such a hot idea.
quote:There seems to be an assumption that ID is some kind of centralized force.
It's a political movement. It's spearheaded by a couple of political groups with the same agenda: to undermine "scientific materialism" in favor of certain Christian religious beliefs. It's all in the Wedge document.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: I think you are making a false assumption if you believe there is one unified theory of intelligent design. It is as varied as the differing views on evolution.
The two things are not relatable. You can say they are similar for various reasons, but one is science, and one is not science. You could be discussing your theories on the nature of the humor of flatulence, and comment that they are "as varied as the differing views on evolution" and not have said anything worth noting.
This desire to establish a false equivalence is central to the ID movement- because ID has nothing to offer anyone in terms of actual human progress in the understanding of science. Nothing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The non-definitive nature of ID is one of its sneakiest and underhanded gimmicks.
If you ask a group of scientists if they think that Evolution could have been directed by a higher power, some will say yes. Then you go about with "Proof that Scientists agree with ID."
Then you take that proof and build a curriculum that does not state that "evolution could have been directed by a higher power." You state an alternative description of ID--That God made everything in, oh, seven days?
They use one definition to sound reasonable and gather acceptance from reasonable people, then implement another definition that is designed to pre-program kids into their faith.
Their faith being one that uses lies, tricks, and planned confusion to gather followers.
As I said early, it sounds like the schemes the devil uses.
Hence--ID is satanic, and should be kept away from our kids in order to save their souls.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mercury, you're making a common mistake in conflating "theistic evolution" (which is the POV you seem to be advocating here) and "Intelligent Design," which is the self-chosen name of a political movement. As swbarnes has noted, Intelligent Design, the political movement, is derived directly from the old creationist movement and proposes exactly the same thing, albeit with the word "God" replaced by "intelligent designer."
In fact, the ID textbook that sparked the recent mess in Dover, PA has been proven to be a creationist textbook in which the word "creationism" was replaced by "Intelligent Design" via the creative method of search-and-replace-all. This was demonstrated by comparison of several passages comparing the current version of the book with an older creationist text, in which the words are entirely unchanged save for the removal of references to the Judeo-Christian God and the use of the word "creationist." One particular instance was especially damning: there was a typo in the original text, in which "creationists" read "ccreationistsists." As a result, the search-and-replace algorithm replaced the nested "creationist" with "design proponents," resulting in the use of "cdesign proponentsists" in the final text.
In other words, nobody here is attacking the idea that God may have used evolution as a means for creation, Deist-style, or that God may even have tweaked evolution here or there. That's theistic evolution, and it's something that does not contradict evolutionary theory. What people are opposing here is the modern political movement known as Intelligent Design, which seeks to reinstitute creationism in science classrooms under the guise of a non-religious theory.
As the cell biologist Ken Miller has noted, and as has just been demonstrated in this thread, the real genius of ID is not in its pretense at scientific thinking (which was refuted almost immediately by real scientists), but rather as a public relations exercise. The term "intelligent design" was purposely chosen by the movement's founders to sound reasonable and to be easily confused with theistic evolution, so that people arguing against it would, to the casual observer, come off as closed-minded, elitist blowhards. It wins followers not through reasoned debate or presentation of solid evidence, but through deception and politics. It is fundamentally dishonest, and because of that, is in my eyes far more repugnant than the creationist movement that birthed it.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: One particular instance was especially damning: there was a typo in the original text, in which "creationists" read "ccreationistsists." As a result, the search-and-replace algorithm replaced the nested "creationist" with "design proponents," resulting in the use of "cdesign proponentsists" in the final text.
I saw this on the NOVA program the other day, and I found this amusing:
"However, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial, and 'cdesign proponentsists' has been described as 'the missing link between creationism and intelligent design.'"Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I still remember endlessly debating with myself as to if I should capitalize your name when you yourself didn't. Of course it always turned out the same way.
I'd something of actual value to the thread but I'm afraid I have little to say on the evolution issue. I was more interested in the affirmative action implications of the Palin pick.
I still remember endlessly debating with myself as to if I should capitalize your name when you yourself didn't. Of course it always turned out the same way.
It doesn't matter much. Capitalized is just my RL name.
Glad to see you around. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
