OT: Dabods thread missing?

[Joe Vancil]

You are not a child, it's obvious who's pushing this intelligent design bullshit and why.

You are correct:  I'm not a child.  

And that is why I'm drawing the distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism, as well as why I'm willing for the first to be taught - provided that it is taught according to its own proper *SCIEINTIFIC* light - in science class, but NOT the latter, even though the latter is what I believe.

If people choose to fight this from the "It's not science!" viewpoint, they'll lose.  That's what everyone should have learned from the 2004 election.

Fight it based on its own merits as a hypothesis, and it won't be adopted until adequate proof of its reasonability exists within the scientific realm.

The scientific method will insure that only the proper one survives as scientific fact.

One of two possibilities exists:  1) the scientific method will prevail, and the proper theory will eventually be accepted as scientific fact because it *IS* scientific fact, or 2) the scientific method is insufficient for determining scientific facts.  In the case of the former, Intelligent Design will only survive if it is the true scientific fact - regardless of how likely or unlikely that possibility is.  In the case of the latter, evolution, intelligent design, and creationism are just "best guesses," and we will never be able to come to the real "truth" using the scientific method, anyway.

Intelligent Design isn't a test of religion - it's a test of whether or not the scientific method is an adequate tool for determining reality.  I happen to believe that it is.

 

[ziggy]

Fossil evidence provides no more scientific proof that evolution is the source of life than it does that creation was the source of life.

Huh?

Fossil evidence is one of the biggest reason's why evolution was adopted over creationism by the scientific community for an explanation on the probable source of life.  While I agree, Evolution hasn't answered the question fully nor has it bluntly stated this was the first ever life form on Earth.  Fossil evidence HAS shown that the tenant of Evolution that says all life has diverged from a singularly simple organism is true.  Fossil evidence has NOT proven the fact that every single life form that has ever existed was uniquely created as is by a higher form.

I would question the term "source of life".  Evolution does not deal with a source of life, it deals with the Origin of the Species.  Evolution deals with and attempts to explain the effect on life forms through evolutionary changes over time.

ID does not necessarily conflict with Evolution at their basic levels.  ID says that certain things could not just happen through happenstance, such as the development of such complex organs and functions like eye sight without there being an "intelligent force" that caused it to happen.  It doesn't state specifically that Evolution is wrong, or that what we have learned from the fossil record is wrong.  

Some people want to use Intelligent design to rationalize or validate their religious beliefs.  Some people want to use evolution to invalidate religious beliefs.

Some people read and interpret the Bible, or some other religious teaching, and say that in conflicts with evolution.  

Some people can take our understanding of evolution today, and not see a conflict with or invalidation of the teaching of any their particular spirtiual beliefs or invalidate their religious teachings such as the Bible.  In other words they can believe in evolution and the bible, and not be in conflict.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and they can easily co-exist together.  That of course doesn't make Intelligent Design correct, even if Evolution is correct, and it also does not mean that it can be proven scientifically.

[rickortreat]

Evolution and Intelligent design are not mutually exclusive, but intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory.  In the first place it assumes that something exists which cannot be seen, just as God is.  It involves an impossible to proove assumption, for which there is no evidence, but merely logical inference.

It's also bullshit, as DNA evidence clearly reveals that human beings are evolved form lower forms.  In fact within human DNA, you can find the genes of many lower lifeforms,and the genetic difference between Chimpanzees and Humans is under 5%.  However this is not to say that DNA itself wasn't planned, or that the universe wasn't constructed by some sort of higher being.  

The idea is that there was a begging some time ago, and that this being that started the whole thing is immortal and eternal.  That means he knew and saw everything that would unfold in the Universe from billions of years ago.  (We don't really know hjow lod the Universe is,  if the big bang theory is correct, and the life cycle of the universe is 40 billion years, how many cycles has it gone through?  If everything collapses into a giant black hole, there's no evidence from one cycle to the next!

Which brings me to my point:  NO ONE HAS ANY DAMN IDEA OF THE TRUTH, so why can't everyone just shut the hell up?

Pat Robertson has no idea what he's talking about.  If there is a God, he is prouder of man's scientific development than he is of religious leader dopes like Pat.  Dover PA will be fine, and better off for getting rid of idealogues who are anti science.

The scientific method applied has enabled man to vastly improve the quality of his life.  Religion continues to enslave millions of people, and can't stand the idea of being trumped by science, but it is very clear that religion is about keeping people under control, while science frees them from their labours.

Europe went throught the dark ages with very little development until Martin Luther and Henry the 8th, rejected the Catholic church.  The Scottish enlightenment separated the Church from politics, and that's when the world really started to develop.  If history shows anything, it shows that religion contains people.

 

[WayOutWest]

ID does not necessarily conflict with Evolution at their basic levels.  ID says that certain things could not just happen through happenstance, such as the development of such complex organs and functions like eye sight without there being an "intelligent force" that caused it to happen.  It doesn't state specifically that Evolution is wrong, or that what we have learned from the fossil record is wrong.

 

I disagree.  They absolutely conflict.  Why would ID create a common ancestor of a frog and a worm for them to evolve from, ID would create two creatures.  ID is a thin veil for creationalism.

Some people want to use Intelligent design to rationalize or validate their religious beliefs.  Some people want to use evolution to invalidate religious beliefs.

The problem is that ID came from religion.  It's not like religion is taking up the banner of ID, they actually created ID to champion thier religios cause.  To not see that is really niave.

Some people can take our understanding of evolution today, and not see a conflict with or invalidation of the teaching of any their particular spirtiual beliefs or invalidate their religious teachings such as the Bible.  In other words they can believe in evolution and the bible, and not be in conflict.

Agreed that SHOULD be the case, but that's not the case with ID and that's not the case with most religious people in the REAL world.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and they can easily co-exist together.  That of course doesn't make Intelligent Design correct, even if Evolution is correct, and it also does not mean that it can be proven scientifically.

ID cannot and will not be proven sceintifically.  To prove ID scientifically would invalidate all our scientific methods and deciplines.

[Joe Vancil]

To prove ID scientifically would invalidate all our scientific methods and deciplines.

So has science - like religion - become its own ends?  If there are scientists out there that agree with that statement, it would scare me to no end - because hiding things that science couldn't explain just to protect science sounds like a really BAD idea to me.

You see, WayOut, I believe that science, applied properly, always gets to the truth.  Whether that truth is Evolution or Intelligent Design should not concern the scientist.

Are you trying to tell me that if life on Earth was generated on another planet, and developed on this planet by exposure to various radiation to trigger projected and planned changes, that SCIENCE is unequipped to handle this possibility?  I disagree completely.  Such a test is done exactly according to the scientific method, and is therefore, reproducable, which, in essence, is the goal of science.  Any "science" that would lead us to a different conclusion if the preceding were fact simply isn't good science.

Given the argument you just gave, I have to question whether science "discovered" evolution - or CREATED it.

 

[rickortreat]

Easy there Joe.  Science is about the discovery of what is there and what is, not how it came to be.  If there were evidence of how it came to be, what primal force or mover there was that started the whole unverse, Science would definitely be interested.

If life came about by some deliberate action by another species, science would definitely want to learn about the process, how these other beings were able to do this and why.  They would also want to learn about this species and their origins.

But generally science starts with observation of phenomena, and an attempt to understand what is being observed and the laws or principals which govern it's behaviour.  

The creation of the Universe is very much of interest to Scientists, but even learning about the true nature of it as it exists today has proven to be quite difficult for us at our level of technological development.

It has recently been discovered that a black hole exists at the center of each galaxy, and that there is a correlation between the rate of rotation about the center of the galaxy and the size and mass of the black hole at it's center.  Apparently an equilibrium is reached between the stars that orbit the black hole such that the black hole doesn't consume all of the stars which orbit it.  

We still are little further along than Einstrin in our attempts to understand physics.  There is still no unified field theory, tying together gravity, radiation, electricity, and the forces which govern the physics withinside of an atom.  Howver all this came to be is somewhat beyond us.  We don't even know what we are looking at now, much less how it came to be.

It may turn out that what we know that we don't know is a lot less than what we don't know that we don't know when it comes to true knowlege and understanding about existance of the physical universe and life itself.  So far religion has kept a tenuous hold over people, because of the limitations of Science.  But it has been demonstrated time and time again, that Science with it's plodding has already proven that many of the claims and statements in Religion are false, and the leaders of Religion percieve Scince to be a threat.

When it comes to the truth, Science is about proof and theory not belief.  It has been proven that it is healthy and correct to admit what you don't know.  Such a process is often scary to people, but such is the way of things.  

Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to be a scientist and realize that our understanding of the world is limited; some people insist on believing in a God who created and understands the whole thing, and have their own way of looking at the world and thinking about what his/her intentions are toward us. There is a good deal of stress and tension between these belivers like Pat Robertson who presumes to understand what is going on.  But to a scientist, Pat Robertson is an idiot, as there is no evidence of a God intervening directly in Human affairs.  If he/she/it does exist he/she/it isn't concerned with our knowing, and therefore must consider it unessential at this level of existance.

Pat Robertson isn't further along in his understanding, his beliefs keep him from looking at and discovering what we can know.  Just saying God did it, doesn't tell us anything, even if it is true!        

[Joe Vancil]

Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to be a scientist and realize that our understanding of the world is limited;

My response to that is that it's becoming obvious that not every person who claims they're a scientist has the intellectual capacity to be a scientist and realize that the theories that science has developed are based on those things that we currently know.  Therefore, it is important that we never grow so attached to any theory that any questions about its validity, suitability, or completeness that we claim that a person questioning this is labeled as narrow-minded, illogical, or unscientific simply to protect the theory (or the process by which it arrived).

ANYONE - scientist or religious zealot - who says they know how life on earth came to be from the scientific standpoint is a quack.  

No scientist today has proven - scientifically - the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor has any person of faith.  The belief in God is NOT in conflict with science, provided we ask the difficult questions:  "If God was not directly involved, how did this come about?  And if God WAS directly involved, what were the actual steps he took in the process to make it work - in other words, exactly how did he do it?"  (And for the answer to the latter question, "He's God; he can do anything" is insufficient.)

You see, to me, God isn't some distant, unknowable force.  I tend to think of him as - in normal everyday terms - a really sharp guy who understands how to do things, in a position of power where he can do them.  You can find similar examples in your network administrator, your boss, a powerful political figure, etc.  albeit on a much smaller scale.  I don't see any reason we can't try to understand what he understands, or to try and figure out how he did the things that he did.  But - just like your network administrator - I think he does set some limits - albeit reasonable, safe ones.  (Your network administrator isn't going to want you unwiring parts of the wiring closet, trying to figure out how it works, for example.)

I would even argue that, from my perspective, the existence of God is necessary to validate science in the first place.  If everything simply occurred randomly, according to no particular design or law, there is no point in trying to understand the universe, since some other random happening could come along and change all of the conditions.  Even in terms of evolution, LIFE, not intelligence, survives.  If radiation fatal to humans bathes the planet tomorrow, but fleas aren't affected by it, fleas survive and humans don't, regardless of the respective levels of intellect.  Without a plan - a design - to understand, there is no point in science - it's a meaningless pursuit to understand a fleeting moment.  Pursuing science is - to me - a pursuit to learn a little more of what God knows, and to understand a little better how he thinks.

 

[rickortreat]

I don't dissagree with anything you said Joe.

But here's a link to an MSNBC article on the Pope's spin on the debate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

Note how he insults scientists and accusses them of atheism.  He assumes that just because they're scientists they rule out the possibility of a supreme being.  Ever since Gallileo, the Church has been hard on Science.  It's a lie.  To accept science and logic is not to go against God.  These are tools to gain understanding.

Also look at what he does:  criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Who in Science says there's no order?   There clearly is an order to the universe; this is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is whether or not someone is behind the order or if it came about without any intervention from an unseen intelligence.

Then he goes on to say, "In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love.”

How does he know that?  That's an assumption with no basis in observable evidence.

It may be true, but there's no way to validate it.  I am highly skeptical of such statements.  
:bs:

When you get right down to it, the Church is that of the Presumptuous Assumption!
 :eek2:

They are prejuidiced against anyone who threatens their understanding or overtakes it.  That's too bad for them; one of the laws of the universe is that the old gets overtaken by the new.  

That doens't mean there's no room for God, but it does suggest that there are better ways to appreciate him than through the Church.   :huh:  

[Guest_Randy]

Rick,

I could say the same about science.  The theory of evolution has so many holes that it remains just that -- but the fact is that it is treated as fact in every science classroom that I have ever been in.  Why?  Because they want to make the presumption that evolution is fact and leave no room for anything else.  

Religion isn't science - it's faith.  But based on the present day theory of evolution -- it takes a great deal of "faith" in evolution due to all the blanks, missing links, etc.  However, scientists love to ignore the holes and present this theory as fact.  

Isn't that about as bad as what the church is doing?

Are scientists out to prove how life was created or are they out to prove the theory of evolution?  If the case for evolution is so strong, then why can't they explain it without leaving so many questions unresolved and unanswered?  A true scientist is in a quest for truth -- not in a quest to prove a theory.  A true scientist isn't bothered by questions that show weaknesses in their theories -- a true scientist sees the need to find weaknesses in their theories rather than just try and shut up anyone who objects.

The majority of scientists today are as protective of their "theory of evolution" as theologians are of "creation."  Why?  Because a majority of scientists can't allow ANY room for intelligent design -- for that brings questions they don't want to answer.

[rickortreat]

That is completly incorrect.  Any true Scientist welcomes competing theories since the whole point is to acquire true knowledge.  Any Scientist who doesn't welcome evidence which invalidates a theory isn't true to the Scientific process.

In general Science teachers aren't Scientists. If the people who taught you evolution implied it was fact, they were mistaken.  And just as bad as the religious for damming Scientists.  However, the evidence for evolution is quite compelling.  The fact that lower forms DNA is contained within the Human Genome is about as definitive a proof as you can get about the validiaty of evolutionary theory, isn't it?

The "holes" are based on assumptions about the nature of the evolutionary process, that one form changes into another, slowly and gradually.  This is not part of theory of evolution.  In fact, it appears that some mutations come about quite suddenly as a result  of changes in the environment.  Conversly there are many periods through history where the development of new species took a great deal of time.

There is no debate about intelligent design, because IT ISN'T A THEORY!  It doesn't compete with evolution, because there's no objective evidence for it.  All it is, is a logical inference, that complexity must come about by design.  That is an assumption, with no apparent validity.  It could work that way, or it might not, complexity may come about through other means.  The point being this isn't science, and therefore doesn't belong in a classroom.

A valid scientific theory that competes with evolution would be welcome.  But it currently appears that Darwin was pretty damn close to the truth about the process. as all the bilogical discovery since then seems to validate it.  

Just what "holes" are you talking about?  Missing links are an assumption about the evolutionary process, not the theory itself.

As for intelligent design, I see no direct evidence whatsoever.  What I do see that life is tremendously adaptive and truly amazing.  You may have heard of PCB's - highly toxic chemicals that come out of the process for making electrical transformers.  There was significant contamination in the Hudson river from PCB's for a long time (since the 30's) a few years ago someone took a look at the biolgical activity at the bottom of the river, and discovered new types of bacteria, that actually eat PCB's!  Evidence of mutation in response to changes in the environment!  

[Guest_Randy]

Want a perfect example:

The fact that lower forms DNA is contained within the Human Genome is about as definitive a proof as you can get about the validiaty of evolutionary theory, isn't it?

Here is an evolutionary assumption -- that the ONLY way a common thread of DNA can exist in more than one species is proof of evolution.  Umm, a TRUE scientist wouldn't say this really PROVES evolution -- they would simply say that it COULD prove evolution.  It's not the only way that a common thread could exist.

The "holes" are based on assumptions about the nature of the evolutionary process, that one form changes into another, slowly and gradually. This is not part of theory of evolution. In fact, it appears that some mutations come about quite suddenly as a result of changes in the environment. Conversly there are many periods through history where the development of new species took a great deal of time.

Actually, this is what's funny -- for many many years that's EXACTLY what evolutionists taught -- that evolution changed from one form to another.  It wasn't until mutational links couldn't be found that evolutionists came with up with the theory of spontaneous evolution -- this is actually a fairly recent concept.  

And there is a different between adapting and evolution.  


I actually enjoy reading scientists who are still seeking truth -- but there's a lot of them that aren't seeking truth -- they are simply seeking to prove their theory.  

The theory of evolution is still that -- a theory -- and it shouldn't be taught as fact.  If something isn't fact, should you reject all other ideas?  The fact is that scientists should continue to keep their minds open period.  

[JoMal]

Apparently, being here is not enough for most people. They have to know WHY we are here.

Maybe we originated by the right combination of algae, heat, moisture, and air components; maybe we are aliens dropped here as an experiment for some "higher being"; maybe aliens landed near the Egyptians, the Mayans, and /or the Chinese and told them how to evolve.

It is fun to speculate on these things, I suppose; more fun to disagree and espouse divergent opinions supporting one, or a combination of these ideas. Believing in philisophical naturalism versus teleolgy has continued since the Greeks first considered the ultimate question of not only why we are here, but why we have eyes meant to see while we are here. Did it not dawn on these philosophers that having eyes in the first place allowed their species the opportunity to even be able to HAVE a discussion as to why we have them? Does it really matter whether it is because man sees because he has eyes rather then man sees because he has eyes and has eyes so he can see?

They were intellectually trying to break down the purpose of existence and each facet of the functioning of our components, using the science of the mind, not empirical evidence contained within a secure environment and using scientific method base on observation.

Using science to prove or not prove them, Intelligent Design to sort of combine them, evolution to provide evidence for them, creationism to explain this mysterious process based on conviction - there can never be a definitive answer that will ever explain all to all who care, simply because the science does not yet exist to prove or disprove the existence of a grand designer of our creation. That relies on faith, and faith in the human existence is as inbred into our psyche as deeply as the need to procreate. Good luck in dislodging that opinion.

To quote, "Teleology stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism, and both ask questions separate from the questions of science. While science investigates natural laws and phenomena, Philosophical naturalism and teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an organizing principle behind those natural laws and phenonema. Philosophical naturalism asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts that there are."

The science to prove or disprove either may one day be answered by our descendents. For the rest of us, the answer may come only after we are in a position to hear the real facts for ourselves.

When we die.

Therefore, I prefer to exist in a vacuum concerning this issue for as long as possible.

[Lurker]

The theory of evolution is still that -- a theory -- and it shouldn't be taught as fact.  If something isn't fact, should you reject all other ideas?

The theory of intelligent design is still that -- a theory -- and it shouldn't be taught as fact.  If something isn't fact, should you reject all other ideas?  

[Guest_Randy]

The theory of evolution is still that -- a theory -- and it shouldn't be taught as fact.  If something isn't fact, should you reject all other ideas?

The theory of intelligent design is still that -- a theory -- and it shouldn't be taught as fact.  If something isn't fact, should you reject all other ideas?

I'm not arguing that ID should be taught in fact -- however, go look at any textbook out there and you will see that there aren't any options and that Evolution is taught as fact even though, at this point, it can't be proven.

I find it quite interesting that scientists, who can't prove evolution, are sooo touchy on the subject of looking anywhere else for the existence of man.  IMO, a scientist should ALWAYS be searching for truth -- and continue that search until it is a fact.  

A scientist who already believes that evolution is fact when it has so many holes isn't a very good scientist, IMO.

Until something is fact and can be proven as such, I think it ought to be taught along with other theories.

[westkoast]

Evolution is not taught as fact out here in California.  In fact if he you get anywhere near the subject the teacher has to stop talking about it or risk being written up and/or losing their position at the school.  At least in the public school system.