94
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 06:12 am
@hingehead,
Your inability to grasp that he actually said "faith and reason are in harmony" is not science.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 06:49 am
@bulmabriefs144,
You are unable to grasp that the objective analysis of words, their meaning, and how they are used does not even purport to be "science".

bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 08:01 am
@hightor,
Hahahaha.

Yeah, what you think of as science is actually political rhetoric then.

I remember doing actual science when I was in school. Now it's just propaganda about how climate change is a big threat, and more propaganda about how science and religion can't coexist.

Whenever someone says otherwise, they trot out Galileo or Copernicus and say "See? See?!? Religion has always persecuted science. Actually, while religion did persecute those with heretical notions (just as a church might if the two were still connected, if chimera experiments were being performed), they also sponsored most of scientific experiments.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/catholic-contributions/the-church-opposes-science-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html

Quote:
The scientific method looks to evidence to settle questions, so perhaps it would be fair to look at evidence to answer the question whether the Catholic Church is opposed to science and reason. If the Catholic Church were opposed to science, we would expect to find no or very few Catholic scientists, no sponsorship of scientific research by Catholic institutions, and an explicit distrust of reason in general and scientific reasoning in particular taught in official Catholic teaching. In fact, we find none of these things.

Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they
"contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents."

The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, shared his faith. More recently, Catholics constitute a good number of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, and Alexis Carrel. How can the achievements of so many Catholics in science be reconciled with the idea that the Catholic Church opposes scientific knowledge and progress?


But yes, feel free to tell me solely on the virtue of me being religious that I dunno what I'm talking about.
coluber2001
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 08:41 am
A fundamentalist arguing with a scientist does not make the weakness of fundamentalism and the shallowness of fundamentalism any more relevent to the twenty-first century, or less anachronistic. Fundamentalism, depending only on early indoctrination and acceptance of the interpretation of myth and symbols as facts, is a mere cover up for the reluctance of these people to delve into the nature of the self. Fundamentalists are not only resistant to biological evolution, they are also resistant to the evolution of contemporary religious philosophy.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 09:50 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Yeah, what you think of as science is actually political rhetoric then.

This conclusion does not logically follow from my observation. You may think you know a lot about science but your apparent lack of common language skills leads you to make faulty deductions and reflects some deep-seated irrationality. Quoting apologia from a Catholic source doesn't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 07:57 pm
@coluber2001,
You People love your labels.

"Fundamentalist." "Racist." "Bigot." "Fascist."

It may surprise you to know that I am decidedly not a fundamentalist, which actually has a real definition to it.

Quote:
Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a movement emphasizing biblical literalism. In its modern form, it began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.


Fundamentalism is so-called because it emphasizes certain "fundamentals" of Christianity. That is, they have a strict and literal definition how the Bible should be interpreted. Instead of deciding you know what I believe, why don't you actually ask me sometime?

If you actually ever bothered to read to what I write, you'd find that I have no problem with evolution. What I do have a problem with is redefining, using buzzwords to shame people into going against what they actually know is right or wrong. Ethics and morals, how passe! Don't they know that burning houses and killing people is trendy now?

Darwin's not the only game in town, people! There are other BETTER evolutionary theories out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution

Many things of Christianity have updated with the times actually. Syncretism or having your own interpretation is not nearly as problematic as it was in my youth. Actual science has changed many aspects of how we understand the universe (the Big Bang, quantum physics, and yes, evolution). But the basic morality does not change to "follow the science", nor does God or Jesus get to adjust to make sure that you have a safe space. The lessons of Christianity are hard, and they involve some suffering and personal sacrifice.

Also, is he a scientist? Really? Because I seem to know that it order to be a scientist, you actually need a fairly decent degree in some field of science, either Physics, Biology, Geology, Botany, Chemistry, or Astronomy. Even should you get such a degree, honestly, you really aren't a scientist if you don't have anything notable written or invented, which is then reviewed by peer groups. I've never heard of anything like that, so... no.

For a fundamentalist to be arguing with a scientist, it seems first there has to be a real fundamentalist, and second for there kinda needs to be a real scientist, no?
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 10:05 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
This conclusion does not logically follow from my observation.


Your observation could possibly be wrong? Here's what I know of science.
https://www.equip.org/article/christianity-led-rise-modern-science/
Quote:
A central tenet of the new atheism is that Christianity and reason are antithetical, and that throughout history Christians have held back progress in science. Atheist historian Dr. Richard Carrier has promoted similar views in his contributions to essay collections such as The Christian Delusion and Christianity Is Not Great. He suggests that, but for the rise of Christianity, the ancient Greeks would have enjoyed a scientific revolution so that the “Dark Ages” never would have happened. However, the truth is very different. The science of the ancient Greek pagans was intended to reinforce their ethical and philosophical positions, rather than to be an objective study of nature. Admittedly, when Christians came to develop their own science in the Middle Ages, they were not being objective either. For them, science was the study of God’s creation. But the metaphysical assumptions of Christianity, unlike those of the Greeks or even Muslims, turned out to be extremely conducive to uncovering true knowledge about nature. They weren’t trying to, but it was Christians who laid the foundations for modern science.


Read the last sentence. That sounds unbelievable right?

Well, let's examine the basic assumptions of each culture.
Greeks: There are multiple gods and they don't always get along. They need to be appeased or placated by making offerings to them. They had Athenian schools of knowledge, and a number of inventions like their well-known Greek Fire. But their science stagnated at about the third century BC. Why? Well, basically it was the source of focus. Science was only to study the natural world in terms of their philosophies. Also, remember I mentioned multiple gods that didn't get along? Okay, how can you develop a consistent idea of reality when "Hera allows gravity today, but Jupiter doesn't like it"? Different gods means there aren't consistent but competing rules of science. No, just no.
Chinese: The Chinese had a huge scientific revolution in chemistry in particular as a result of a certain mad emperor's goal to use alchemy to become immortal. But ultimately, it stagnated too. Why? Although Taoism is responsible for many advances due to this guy (First Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi), the same religion emphasized going with the flow and living with nature rather than trying to defy it. Eventually, advances just stopped because it was counterproductive to this goal.
Muslim: Ummm yea, the Dark Ages weren't caused by Christianity. The Dark Ages started not when the Germans (who were mostly Romanized) sacked Rome, as we are taught in most schools, but because the Germans couldn't maintain the Roman Empire so it split into the HRE, a series of city-states. These states were gobbled up by invaders, and those grand castles that you see throughout Europe? They're not so that the king can oppress people, they typically had entire towns housed inside. The feudal system was there to defend these isolated walled towns from attack and for centuries technology and culture just stagnated. Everyone was too busy surviving to invent alot of new things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
But they get credit for science because they were notorious plagiarists. But actual Muslim "scientists"? Well, most science was viewed as apostacy because as Qur’an 21:23 says "He cannot be questioned concerning what He does" meaning it is not only pointless but heretical to try to understand the natural world. When they were finally driven? Art, culture, and yes, science literally took off. The Renaissance.
Christian: Unlike the "same God as the Jews and Christians" of Islam, the God of Christians (and Jews) encouraged questioning. Judaism to less extent than Christianity because it was saddled with an excess of laws, but nonetheless they encourage interpretation of the Torah. The Bible tossed some of the laws about eating pork and such out the window, meaning Christians had a God that literally encouraged "wrestling" with ideas. Not only that, but the natural world (everything from the stars and planets to wee beasties like protista and fungi) is considered a creation of God. So by investigating the natural world, we are exploring God's world. There are limits. Christians generally believe that there are such a thing as unethical experiments. Frankenstein? Yeah, that sorta thing. So would particularly cruel animal or human experiments. So let's talk about atheism now.
Atheism: Without a firm connection to either morality or any sense of Creator, science under atheism appears to be for its own sake. This is problematic, because this means not only science, but potentially science without any ethics. There's a second problem. The "science" of atheism is already beginning to stagnate, because like with the Greeks, the atheists prefer science to use the natural world to support their philosophies. Atheist science is doomed to failure because rather than view facts objectively wherever they lead, it uses it to "prove" atheism (we already see this with Hawking's notion that "it is not necessary to invoke God" or other "scientists" telling us that having explained how most natural phenomena works is equivalent to making God redundant) or to push the latest leftist idea.
https://pics.me.me/roman-bridge-built-in-104ad-feminist-bridge-built-in-2018ad-31652975.png
(Feminist bridges) Christian science does not need to do any such thing, it already believes God to be the origin of the natural world, in which case its only goal is science, the study of this world. Yet atheism proposes to call itself "logical."

Logic.
http://www.thereturnedmissionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Inigo-Montoya-WORD-MEANS.jpg

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2021 11:11 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
that ain't science. it's religion and it's purely opinionn, not reality.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 04:34 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Your observation could possibly be wrong?


Not in this case.

hester831 wrote:
Faith and reason are in perfect harmony.


hingehead responded with a picture of a sign which said:

Quote:
Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.


You replied:

you wrote:
Your inability to grasp that he actually said "faith and reason are in harmony" is not science.


Here you implied that reading comprehension and science are something similar. I corrected your mistake:

I wrote:
You are unable to grasp that the objective analysis of words, their meaning, and how they are used does not even purport to be "science".


I'm not interested in your religion-friendly revisionist history of science I just wanted to clear up your misunderstanding of hingehead's response. It wasn't supposed to be "science".
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 05:49 am
@hightor,
I wondr where all this :harmony" lies between scienc and religion???

Dr Myers "...The God Hypothesis", is one of the later and more celebrated apologias. Yet, it too tries to make arguments with 50 year old science thats been substantially added to or even modified .(Like the fossil record has grown by 10 tims since the 1940's) yet the IDers fail to recognize the bulk of cintific data and evidence. They only pick and choose from a few paoints and ignore the bulk .
alwys need to remember taht a theory incorporates ALL the vidence , even that which may not fit the old model.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 05:56 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I just wanted to clear up your misunderstanding of hingehead's response. It wasn't supposed to be "science".

What a pity, almost no one actually comes here to discuss the science, just their perception of the poster.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 06:34 am
@MontereyJack,
No, it's not!

The study of science is the study of the natural world. Up to and including the furthest reaches of outer space and the smallest beings or objects.

You can only study the natural world in its purest form if you are not studying it in the hope to despoil it (as the atheists seem want to do), if you are not trying to live as part of it (as the Chinese Taoists did), if don't have some heresy against studying it in the first place (Muslims), if you don't study it with the notion there are multiple creators of this reality (polytheism), but see the study of the natural world as you service to God and humanity (theism, specifically one without too many rules except for basic morality).

The study of science under Christianity is limitless yet principled, leads one to truth about the universe, and makes life a better state than it was before. The study of science under atheism is an end unto itself, fueled the production of several weapons (the nuke bomb offhand, but also electromagnetic weapons) or means of control (Alexa, contact tracing, microchipping people, mRNA vaccines, 5G) sometimes disguised as modern conveniences or medicine.

Oh yea, btw. Our Alexa that my brother gave as a gift? Not only did it light up in the middle of conversations, leading us to unplug it, but setting it up somehow hooked our houses together. "Bobby, I've got chocolate and lemonade" Alexa cheerfully announced on our TV, interrupting a program. Turned out that my sister-in-law had just said this. Such devices that accidentally link houses can also be used for intentional surveillance by someone who knows what they are doing. In fact, at Amazon itself, they are listening to alot of conversations, to the point where the police were called when a girl was attacked by her husband. While that's great in that case, it also means that the system can hear substantially more than it is given credit. My concern doesn't end there, remember I talked about electromagnetic weapons? Well, 5G pulses are in about the microwave radiation frequency. A military force could turn such frequencies into a weapon. I do respect science. When it is used to actually study the world and not reinforce political or philosophical narratives, when it is used to improve life and not to unethical ends.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 06:47 am
@hightor,
A quick test of bias. When you immediately jump to the assertion "Not in this case" when asked if maybe you're wrong.

You misunderstood what I said.

It is not science to have a fixed point of view. That is, hingehead says that "You ability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it." I immediately would attach scare quotes to the word " science" there, because what hingehead was really saying is this:

"[Science (reason) and religion (faith) are not in harmony, as you (hester831) believe.] Your inability to grasp 'science' (the dogma that is not the least bit scientific because no tests or scientific method is applied to it) is not a valid argument against it. "

This is what I meant he said. If you're thinking you know better about what I meant than me, you're mistaken. Sometimes I do make logical jumps of things that are in my head but I didn't type, but in this case I knew what I was talking about. The science hingehead speaks of is just an idealized opinion of how science should be. But it's not necessarily so.


hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 08:09 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
The science hingehead speaks of is just an idealized opinion of how science should be.

If you think that believing in things for which there is no material evidence (faith) is "in harmony" with the scientific method then you are the one with an "idealized opinion of how science should be". The two types of thought could not be more dissimilar. No harmony, just dissonance.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 04:12 pm
@hightor,
Intelligent Design, followed by the word "Theory" is a total misuse of theory as a scientific term. ID has no evidence nor any facts at all that can be presented except for some bold unproven assertions that say that the complexity of life is enough to count as "evidence". none of that passes the frye or daubert rules.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2021 05:59 pm
@farmerman,
Their posts are so lame I don't read most of them.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2021 06:48 am
@hightor,
Science is the study of the natural world.
Religion concerns the supernatural world.

Religion types don't use rules of science to dictate their studies. These are two distinct disciplines. This is why they are in harmony.

Or by this logic, math and art are at war with each other. How absurd. The artist might occasionally use a ruler or compass to make cleaner lines, but they also plop paint on their fingers or paint with their own blood or whatever creative things strike their fancy.

Separate disciplines are not at war, nor is ir reasonable to suggest that religion think like science. It doesn't. It's a different way of seeing the world. Not an opposed one.

This is a sleight of hand. Atheism and religion (mostly Christians) are at war with each other. Atheism = science they say, so "science" is at war with religion.

But how scientific is atheism? The answer, not very. When pressed on scientifixc laws that actually suggest that nothing can come without cause (read some of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just "create" heat, it goes from source to sink, dispersing as it goes), they simply ignore them! Their pet theory that all of this is random is true, billion of years of directed evolution be damned. They say it's an accident we evolved from lower primates. No, it's progress. They say the Big Bang happened on its own, even though before there was a universe, the fundamental laws (gravity, momentum, magnetism, force) did not exist. There wasn't just a bang, there was essentially the laws and energy inserted into the system to make it work. But the atheist continually says that it happened on its own.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2021 06:59 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


Science is the study of the natural world.
Religion concerns the supernatural world.

Religion types don't use rules of science to dictate their studies. These are two distinct disciplines. This is why they are in harmony.

Or by this logic, math and art are at war with each other. How absurd. The artist might occasionally use a ruler or compass to make cleaner lines, but they also plop paint on their fingers or paint with their own blood or whatever creative things strike their fancy.

Separate disciplines are not at war, nor is ir reasonable to suggest that religion think like science. It doesn't. It's a different way of seeing the world. Not an opposed one.

This is a sleight of hand. Atheism and religion (mostly Christians) are at war with each other. Atheism = science they say, so "science" is at war with religion.

But how scientific is atheism? The answer, not very. When pressed on scientifixc laws that actually suggest that nothing can come without cause (read some of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just "create" heat, it goes from source to sink, dispersing as it goes), they simply ignore them! Their pet theory that all of this is random is true, billion of years of directed evolution be damned. They say it's an accident we evolved from lower primates. No, it's progress. They say the Big Bang happened on its own, even though before there was a universe, the fundamental laws (gravity, momentum, magnetism, force) did not exist. There wasn't just a bang, there was essentially the laws and energy inserted into the system to make it work. But the atheist continually says that it happened on its own.



If by "atheism" you mean the assertion, "There are no gods"...then, yes. As with your assertion that there is one GOD, it not science. It is, like your assertion, nothing but a blind guess.

But not all atheists make that blind guess. In fact, most here in A2K do not.

So what are you babbling on about?
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2021 07:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
But it's the conflation of "atheism is 'scientific ', so atheism is science" fallacy that I object to.

Science is a discipline of study. Theology is also a field of study. I studied science all through college until the last year (I figured out that I hated organic chemistry, and since it was required for a horticulture minor, I switched over using History of Religion class to supplement two requirements). I am living proof there needn't be any conflict between religion and science. Every Sunday, I went to church. Every Tuesday and Thursday, they had science labs. I just realized I wasn't good at testing but very good at written exams and essays. Bye bye studying for tests, and hello to about four essays for the last year. I had to write about 20-30 pages in one night, because I procrastinated. I did graduate but probably not with any honors.

What I am "babbling on about" is that there is a distinction between scientific study, and "scientific" dogma. Dogma is teaching that one is expected to follow or not be considered a real scientist. But dogma is part of religion. When scientists demand that people stick to a rigid idea of how the universe developed, or how man developed, or tell people that " no true scientist" is an atheist, they are asserting dogma and being just like a religion. That's not science. That is in conflict with religion, because it's an atheistic sciency-sounding faith.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2021 07:32 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


But it's the conflation of "atheism is 'scientific ', so atheism is science" fallacy that I object to.


"Atheism" is a descriptor...and a rather random one at that.

It is not science...and very few atheists ever say that atheism is science.

But you have a tendency to make things up...pretend people say things...and then argue against the **** you make up.

Try to get away from that, Bulma.

Quote:
Science is a discipline of study. Theology is also a field of study. I studied science all through college until the last year (I figured out that I hated organic chemistry, and since it was required for a horticulture minor, I switched over using History of Religion class to supplement two requirements). I am living proof there needn't be any conflict between religion and science. Every Sunday, I went to church. Every Tuesday and Thursday, they had science labs. I just realized I wasn't good at testing but very good at written exams and essays. Bye bye studying for tests, and hello to about four essays for the last year. I had to write about 20-30 pages in one night, because I procrastinated. I did graduate but probably not with any honors.


How great of you.

Bulma...the Pope is living proof that there needn't be any conflict between religion and science.

Some nonsense religion is at odds with science...and certainly the creation stories in the Bible are at odds with much of science.

But most modern Christian religionists are not particularly at odds with science.



Quote:
What I am "babbling on about" is that there is a distinction between scientific study, and "scientific" dogma. Dogma is teaching that one is expected to follow or not be considered a real scientist. But dogma is part of religion. When scientists demand that people stick to a rigid idea of how the universe developed, or how man developed, or tell people that " no true scientist" is an atheist, they are asserting dogma and being just like a religion. That's not science. That is in conflict with religion, because it's an atheistic sciency-sounding faith.


Just about everything you write is babbling, Bulma. I doesn't make me happy to inform you of that...but it is so.

YOU BABBLE.

And you do most of it in an attempt to sell your blind guesses about the REALITY as fact.

Stop doing it...and I will stop calling it to your attention.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 10:20:53