Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

life keeps getting pushed further & further back in time which makes Farmerman et al 'life is inevitable' thing the only alternative to 'Gawd

science can actually speculate and evidence many of the actual chemical reactions and physical chemistry "States" of matter that results in the development of things like phospholipids, or enzyme polymers (which later become bio chemicals).

Can the Gawd story even speculate on this?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

doesnt really matter about the creation museum. The fact is that there are really only two ID genesis groups
1 Those who name the IDer

2 Those who dont

In terms of keeping it scientifically accurate, 'the museum' matters a lot.

The ones who don't name the IDer are just acknowledging the political realities of 'separation of church & state'. OF COURSE they believe it was God. Why do you expect them (or me) to feel ashamed of that? I'll admit that tying them to it is a good political tactic though.

Quote:

Outside of an "alien" argument via Panspermia as was the "belief" of Francis Crick, all the rest really come back to a meddling , not-so-intelligent deity.

Yes, the Panspermia thing is absurd, funny and a dead end argument for evolutionists. I don't understand why they use it except that scientists like Crick know enough cellular biology to see how damn difficult abiogenesis actually is. Panspermia is just more comfortable for them than God.

I don't know Ken Miller's work. After your mention, I'm curious enough to at least Google it.

0 Replies

UPDATE ON MAINE"S EDUCATION COMMISSIONER

Quote:

On Monday, he said he doesn’t believe schools should teach creationism in science classes, and that he will not put forward any effort to change Maine’s current science standards to include creationism, the idea that the universe and life originated as a result of divine intervention.

“There’s a place for religion and a place for science,” Beardsley said. “Do I believe in science? Of course I believe in science. My mother was an astronomer. Am I a person of faith? Yes, I happen to be a person of faith.

“I keep my faith separate from my secular work,” he added.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/10/19/acting-doe-commissioner-reverses-creationism-comment/

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Can the Gawd story even speculate on this?

I've been doing that for 60 years now.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

with anything approaching some facts? It seems to be a lot of,"Once upon a time"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

with anything approaching some facts? It seems to be a lot of,"Once upon a time"

We always get the family together when reading a posting from farmerman.

She is indeed very entertaining. lol

0 Replies

@farmerman,

More like 'What if ...'
When the universe and life spring up by unknown processes, we are all left to speculate..

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

More like 'What if ...'
When the universe and life spring up by unknown processes, we are all left to speculate..

Precisely, Leadfoot.

The problem here is that Farmerman thinks that science and logic have shown that gods (or a god) are impossible.

Neither science nor logic does that...but that does not seem to matter to Farmerman. It is his story...and he is sticking with it.

There is no way to get to "it is more likely there is a god...than that there are none" using reason, logic or science.

BUT there also is no way to get to "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

That last part is the part that seems to stick in their scientific, logical craws.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Precisely, Leadfoot.

The problem here is that Farmerman thinks that science and logic have shown that gods (or a god) are impossible.

Neither science nor logic does that...but that does not seem to matter to Farmerman. It is his story...and he is sticking with it.

There is no way to get to "it is more likely there is a god...than that there are none" using reason, logic or science.

BUTthere also is no way to get to "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

That last part is the part that seems to stick in their scientific, logical craws.

Yes,
But not to make a decision seems like a waste since we have to play this game. My best guess is that there is a God who started this game and placed me on this board. To not play is not an option for me. There are advantages to making a decision. Farmerman has chosen to have the satisfaction of facing his reality that he is an accident of physics. I have decided that there is more reason behind existence. There is the chance that either of us is wrong.

If farmerman is right, he will have lived with the satisfaction that he was right about reality (I'm not underestimating that BTW).

I'm convinced that I'm right but there is the always chance that I am wrong. If so, my last thought will be that I imagined the universe better than it is.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

And just what makes it 'bizarre'? It seemed pretty logical to me.

Where is your logic in how this 'narrows the gaps'?

Another take on it would be that it calls into question the reliability of methodology used to determine signs of life, dating life, etc if it turns out to be caused by something other than 'life'.

Always open to alternative takes if it makes sense.

By your "logic," more data = less data. Rolling Eyes

You people have a smaller time gap for your god to have worked its miracles. We'll see what the evidence supports. I don't see it supporting any miracles yet.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Why do BELIEVE the religion called 'science' so faithfully?

I hope you do understand that science=religion?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

More like 'What if ...'

Good question to start with, but what happens next? If, when the phenomena being studied permit moving from prediction to control: "What would happen if....". Non-scientific approaches have followed paths like:

Question X --> believe X. -->. Conclude X
Or
Question X --> believe not X --> Conclude not X

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

An entymologist who's been credited for the initial work in sociobiology is E O Wilson. He wrote On Human Nature in which He asserts that the "need for gods" as an explanation for the origins of things is merely a "throwback" , a relic of humanities intellectual childhood. As Dawkins first mentioned;
..."Its one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cant admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, and lacking all purpose"

Science, merely employs that as a working principle (methodological naturalism), otherwise no serious work would get done.

My own moral worldview ,(when I first began to suspect that religion was a fully created entertainment industry) did need a compass. I found that the atheistic bases of the search for the "good" had an adequate origin (IMHO) in the philosophy of the Hellenic Greeks .

Geology is one of the crafts that brutally combats the facts of the earth with the beliefs of the earthlings, and Ive concluded that these beliefs needed people to spend a lot more time to learn about physical and biological sciences.

Once you spend an equivalent time in questioning "how in the hell could an intelligent designer involve itself in this process?" you are really no longer involved in science, you actually become an L Ron Hubbard clone (Your catechism of the overall story is really irrelevant ) since its only done to provide you "comfort" , not facts and evidence).
I really have no time for that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

As Dawkins first mentioned;
..."Its one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cant admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, and lacking all purpose"

Of course things might be as Dawkins believes. Of course there are those who lose all reference to reality preferring the comfort of their own delusions.

But as you see, even Dawkins can't bring himself to say definitively and absolutely that they ARE that way. He knows he is just making his best guess. You do not seem to have that same objectivity.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

But as you see, even Dawkins can't bring himself to say definitively and absolutely that they ARE that way.

Where do you get that from what Dawkins says in that quote? Are you a native-speaker of English?

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"More like 'What if ...' "

Good question to start with, but what happens next? If, when the phenomena being studied permit moving from prediction to control: "What would happen if....". Non-scientific approaches have followed paths like:

Question X --> believe X. -->. Conclude X
Or
Question X --> believe not X --> Conclude not X

I've made it quite clear in previous posts that I followed a different path. More like:
Question X ---> If X = True then should see Y
If Y seen, X = True
If Y not seen, X = False
Y seen --> so X = True

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Your logic is wrong.

Quote:

Question X ---> If X = True then should see Y
If Y seen, X = True

Brad is 5' 10"
Is that person 5'10"? Yes.
You would conclude using your logic: It's true that person is Brad.

Your logic is wrong since Brad is not the only person 5'10" tall. The same issue occurs with your conclusions on ID.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Your logic is wrong.

Quote:
Question X ---> If X = True then should see Y
If Y seen, X = True

Brad is 5' 10"
Is that person 5'10"? Yes.
You would conclude using your logic: It's true that person is Brad.

Your logic is wrong since Brad is not the only person 5'10" tall. The same issue occurs with your conclusions on ID.

If I had defined 'Y' in such narrow terms you would have a point. But since I didn't, You don't.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Let's widen the definition.
The logic will always be the same.

Brad is 5'10". Brad is a man. Brad has a beard.
Is that person 5'10? Is that person a man? Does the person have a beard? Yes to all.
Using your logic. It must be Brad. The same issues still occur with your conclusions on ID.

1 Reply

@parados,

Repeating the same error does not make it less erroneous.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know