Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I already said what I think. Shall I repeat it?

0 Replies

Thomas said

Quote:

But according to pollingreport.com, a majority of the US population actually wants creationism to be taught alongside with evolution in public schools.

The poll mostly shows how the" religious segment" of the right has been emboldened from 1999 when the Fox pollwas taken on the Kansas rulings .
Even though this admin has said that it wants no part of government by "polls", they sure arent doing anything to practise their homilies.
I, for onewill not, screw the polls, roll over and let crap science and mumbo jumbo be substituted for good science education. This isnt merely a matter of a "right to be ignorant".
Im more concerned as to how many of the scientists have adopted a "theyre a bunch of screwballs" attitude and are just letting the drama play out with a smugness that only reflects Europe in pre WWII.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im more concerned as to how many of the scientists have adopted a "theyre a bunch of screwballs" attitude and are just letting the drama play out with a smugness that only reflects Europe in pre WWII.

I think the idea is not to raise their status by debating them at every opportunity

Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution
By Cornealia Dean New York Times
Published: June 21, 2005

When the Kansas State Board of Education decided to hold hearings this spring on what the state's schoolchildren should be taught about evolution, Dr. Kenneth R. Miller was invited to testify. Lots of people thought he was a good choice to speak for science.
Dr. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University, a co-author of widely used high school and college biology texts, an ardent advocate of the teaching of evolution - and a person of faith. In another of his books, "Finding Darwin's God," he not only outlines the scientific failings of creationism and its doctrinal cousin, "intelligent design," but also tells how he reconciles his faith in God with his faith in science.
But Dr. Miller declined to testify. And he was not alone. Mainstream scientists, even those who have long urged researchers to speak with a louder voice in public debates, stayed away from Kansas.
In general, they offered two reasons for the decision: that the outcome of the hearings was a foregone conclusion, and that participating in them would only strengthen the idea in some minds that there was a serious debate in science about the power of the theory of evolution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21evo.html

0 Replies

you have a point there....but then..........

This point of view suffers because it doesn't take into account that the fundies are out there with an organized strategy. Ignoring them completely would be a mistake.

0 Replies

Im aware of Millers position but Im more involved with the same kinds in the Geosciences who are certain that the IDers will flame out.
My opinion is that this entire debate is getting legs, and will be a candidate for higher and higher adjudication. The last hump was pure Creation "ism" , when the USSC voted against Louisiana. This one will be much more subtle and , as it seems, "no one really minds that the only aspect under debate here is the origin of life, not evolution." That seems to be a growing accomodation.
Im sorry, Ive read too much hokum that the IDers have published , just review the ID web sites, they always argue that ID is consistent with religion wheras evolution is not. Yeahh, that alone worries me.

0 Replies

I believe there is a great deal of credulous stupidity and ignorance on both sides of this argument. In my view this has formed the greatest part of an issue that is greatly overblown and far too often reduced to absurd claims on both sides.

Biblical descriptions of history and creation have no privileged place in either human history or science. The historical record of human civilization that is taught in our schools should be based on the best available evidence, records and analysis, regardless of the beliefs of the writers of the source material we use. Similarly the teaching of the scientific disciplines of physics, biology and geology should be based on the precepts of those branches of science, the evidence available and contemporary theoretical models - all with a firm grounding in the basic principles of science including refutable hypotheses, the scientific method, reproducable factual data and the known limitations of contemporary theory.

Science does not yet offer an understanding of the reason for or ultimate origins of our existence. There is no reason for science to claim this or any ground which it does not occupy - just as there is no reason for believers in a creator to claim that physical processes which we can observe and model did and do not occur. To vigorously pursue knowledge at the frontiers of physics or biology it is not (yet at least) necessary to exclude the possibility of either a singularity or unexplainable initiation of events which science can only partly explain. Rational investigation of the observable world and the accompanying development of refutable theoretical constructs for modelling it do not threaten right understanding, as long as one preserves the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

Claims for certainty, where none exists, on both sides of this dispute are equally based on ignorance and lack of right understanding.

0 Replies

georgeob said

Quote:

Claims for certainty, where none exists, on both sides of this dispute are equally based on ignorance and lack of right understanding.

Youre missing the point entirely. Read "A brief History of the Modern Amrican CreationMovement"
by Jerry Bergman. its from Contra mundum1993
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html

0 Replies

I'm not missing any point at all. What I wrote is self-consistent and true. I have great confidence in the folly of most committed advocates on both sides of this subject and don't need more demonstrations of it to be reassured of that depressing fact.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The Argument Clinic
Theory of Relativity. Theory of Evolution.

Both are, like any scientific theory, minimalist explanations for observed material phenomena. Both are famous.

One is notorious. No extra points for guessing which.

Since its inception over 150 years ago, the Theory of Evolution has been the target of a more or less relentless Christian jeremiad. Typically, the response from paleontologists and evolutionary biologists has been to parade the facts and show how the Theory neatly ties them all up; clearly, so much evidence in support of something so intuitively obvious must demonstrate the jeremiad mistaken.

As if.

Evolution's antagonists--Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates--are in high dudgeon. That dudgeon is in direct proportion to two things: belief in Biblical inerrancy, and the insistence that rock-ribbed Christian religiosity is the sine qua non of morality. Make no mistake, this argument is not over the Theory's explanatory power; rather, it is over the impact of that power upon the Bible.

CONTINUED AT,

http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2005/02/argument-clinic.html

0 Replies

I don't think your comments are relavant george in this respect. Science does not seek to answers questions about why man is here but rather seeks to solve the mysteries as they emerge in an attempt to understand how the natural order works by observation and repetition. It doesn't really matter whether the creation story is true or not.......the point it that it's not science. As you've so eloquently stated.

If you want to believe the creation story, any creation story is true, that's fine. But go teach it in Church, or a comparative religion course, not the science classroom.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe there is a great deal of credulous stupidity and ignorance on both sides of this argument. In my view this has formed the greatest part of an issue that is greatly overblown and far too often reduced to absurd claims on both sides.

Biblical descriptions of history and creation have no privileged place in either human history or science. The historical record of human civilization that is taught in our schools should be based on the best available evidence, records and analysis, regardless of the beliefs of the writers of the source material we use. Similarly the teaching of the scientific disciplines of physics, biology and geology should be based on the precepts of those branches of science, the evidence available and contemporary theoretical models - all with a firm grounding in the basic principles of science including refutable hypotheses, the scientific method, reproducable factual data and the known limitations of contemporary theory.

Science does not yet offer an understanding of the reason for or ultimate origins of our existence. There is no reason for science to claim this or any ground which it does not occupy - just as there is no reason for believers in a creator to ...

Claims for certainty, where none exists, on both sides of this dispute are equally based on ignorance and lack of right understanding.

This is a specious argument, a highly specious one. George is using his patented "I'm fair, I'm able to point out the foibles of both sides" argument to trick you into thinking his argument has merit.

This type of deception is worse than a person who is merely ignorant and shows it. Ignorance can be rectified.

George's opinion has merit, his arguments are fallacious.

By suggesting that the "level of ignorance" of the two sides, on the science issue, is close to par takes disingenuous to a new level.

By pointing up that science hasn't solved everything, he seeks to highlight the gaps. And though he doesn't state it outright [part of his sleight of hand], he leaves everyone thinking that the default, the thing, or at least a thing to explain these gaps, must/may/might/could be ID, so let's give it the chance it deserves.

[palms out] "Hey, what else could it be? There's nothing else, right?"

The gulf that exists between the science and the posturing of ID/creationism is so huge that suggestions they be taught together is nothing short of ludicrous.

Quote:

"Acquiring sufficient first hand knowledge to support a resilient second order knowledge requires an astonishing amount of work; no Creationist organization has anything even remotely approximating ongoing research to obtain first order knowledge. Merely adopting the science's formalisms will not close that gap.

http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2005/02/argument-clinic.html

"I'm puzzled/I'm flummoxed/I'm confused ... , ... hey I know, I'll seek answers in ignorance" doesn't sound like a sound policy to live by, nor one to be recommended to others.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw: I don't believe the "ism" is what made the 30% difference to the replies of the people polled. It's the "along with" versus "instead of" that made this difference. This observation is reaffirmed if you scroll down and look at the results of the FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll, to which my "variations depending on the pollster" refer. The wording in this poll is different, does not depend the "creation vs. creationism" distinction, and it still reproduces the result of the first poll!

Of course, you are perfectly free to believe differently than I do, even if it requires ignoring this other poll.

Thomas,
I looked at both polls. I am still confused about your conclusions.

0 Replies

georgeob said

Quote:

I'm not missing any point at all. What I wrote is self-consistent and true. I have great confidence in the folly of most committed advocates on both sides of this subject

Then if you arent, youve miscast the points. Science has always tried to state its limits of knowledge by further investigation. Its never EVER pursued an inroad into faith and doctrine. A small, yet well funded group of commited believers in the Bible as a reference guide to investigation, has, since the early 1900s tried to organize a theocracy.
Do you wish to debtae "c" with some Creationist
Howbout decay rates of radioisotopes?
Geomagnetism and rates of seafloor spreading to defeat an "Old earth" interpretation.
All of these are underpinnings of standard evolutionary theory ( because we have evidence of life from earlier periods, we wish to understand the relative dates that these particular beings lived)

"CREATION Mega Conference,2005"
, being held at Liberty College in 2 weeks, is having a bunch of "scientists" who are casting doubts on well proven laws and theories of physics. not for any scholarly inquiry, or even to propose something better. No its just because they need to convince their dittoheads that science is full of it and cant hold up to the "Truths in the Bible". So a bunch of mushy head kids are going to be sitting there getting indoctrinated by this boogie man crap and then maybe theyll want to apply to Princeton (sorry) to do study in molecular biology. They will be, intellectually, unarmed

Recently the American Chemical Society, The Assn of Uni Professors,have added their own support of the family v the school board case in Dover Pa. Ill check and see whether the ASME has taken a stand yet. (I know that my own organizations are planning their own statements in support, but are waiting for the date to be closer to September)

0 Replies

JTT,

Perhaps I misunderstood george's post . And maybe george can clear this up by telling us what more exactly he meant. What he said was the following:

Quote:

Science does not yet offer an understanding of the reason for or ultimate origins of our existence. There is no reason for science to claim this or any ground which it does not occupy - just as there is no reason for believers in a creator to ...

Claims for certainty, where none exists, on both sides of this dispute are equally based on ignorance and lack of right understanding. . .

I thought he was claiming that science seeks to explain why man exists (the reason) or if God exists (understanding the ultimate origins). So I responded that the problem with his argument was that "why" and "by whom" are not the subject matter of science. It is however the concern of religion. Science seeks to understand by repeated observation and religion seeks to understand by adherence to authority. These are obviously not the same.

And maybe you're right because george is smarter than this. I can very well see how he might have been making the standard DI(wedge) argument......in which case, shame on you george......

But regardless of which argument he was making, he still doesn't take into account the highly organized, and shockingly successful effort on the part of DI to insidiously insert religion back into public policy and education. He doesn't come right out and say that he thinks "creation science" should be given equal time, but again if his intention was disengenuous and intended to further their cause..........which the more I write, the more I see what you mean, then yuck george!

0 Replies

I don't know what "DI" refers to so I can't comment. With respect to my statement, which I have repeated in full below ......

"Science does not yet offer an understanding of the reason for or ultimate origins of our existence. There is no reason for science to claim this or any ground which it does not occupy - just as there is no reason for believers in a creator to claim that physical processes which we can observe and model did and do not occur. To vigorously pursue knowledge at the frontiers of physics or biology it is not (yet at least) necessary to exclude the possibility of either a singularity or unexplainable initiation of events which science can only partly explain. Rational investigation of the observable world and the accompanying development of refutable theoretical constructs for modelling it do not threaten right understanding, as long as one preserves the fundamental principles of the scientific method. "

I believe the words are plain and the meaning entirely clear. Evolution provides a model for observable processes for the development of species and their change over time. Neither it nor modern physics claim to explain the origins of matter, energy, space, time, and life - in short how we got here. Moreover it isn't necessary for physicists or biologists to claim otherwise in defense of science or the scientific method.

I have no doubt that there are people and organizations that would with equal lack of necessity intrude on scientific theories and method to insist that that some religious or other arbitrary description of the origin of natural processes be included in the teaching of science. There are also similarly unsophisticated protagonists of science who would foolishly and needlessly teach science as though it is an alternative to or precludes the belief in a creator. Both of these follies involve equivalent transgressions - one from metaphysics to physics and the other from physics to metaphysics, I regard them as equivalently foolish, though I recognize that in many quarters - this thread for example - the intolerance of "scientists" who stray outside their domain is accepted much more than is the equivalent intolerance of religious zealots. Most of religious scripture as it relates to our origins is metaphor - as is physics when it deals with beginnings.

So I regard the close-minded protagonists on both sides of this mostly absurd debate with equal skepticism.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't know what "DI" refers to so I can't comment. With respect to my statement, which I have repeated in full below ......

"Science does not yet offer an understanding of the reason for or ultimate origins of our existence. There is no reason for science to claim this or any ground which it does not occupy - just as there is no reason for believers in a creator to claim that physical processes which we can ...

So I regard the close-minded protagonists on both sides of this mostly absurd debate with equal skepticism.

An even more specious type of reasoning, George. Repeating BS, even when it's shoveled faster, further or higher, doesn't in any way help it to become more than it is.

If I was unclear as to the terminology someone used, I'd ask about that at the end so that this one and only important point didn't find itself buried at the bottom of all that shoveled material.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the words are plain and the meaning entirely clear. Evolution provides a model for observable processes for the development of species and their change over time. Neither it nor modern physics claim to explain the origins of matter, energy, space, time, and life - in short how we got here. Moreover it isn't necessary for physicists or biologists to claim otherwise in defense of science or the scientific method.

It isn't even clear that questions about "the origins of matter, energy, space, time, and life" are meaningful at all. It's a curved spacetime after all, so the question "what came before the Big Bang?" may be as shallow as "what landscape do you find a mile north of the North Pole?"

0 Replies

I agree. Then the question becomes what is the origin of the energy and the resulting space time? At this point physics becomes as metaphorical as scripture.

0 Replies

georgeob stated

Quote:

To vigorously pursue knowledge at the frontiers of physics or biology it is not (yet at least) necessary to exclude the possibility of either a singularity or unexplainable initiation of events which science can only partly explain

As far as I know, all possibilities lie on the table. However, not pursuing the origins questions into the realms of physical chemistry and molecular biology and instead , delving into the realms of unprovable myth just makes it a pursuit of "magic".
However, Ive always found that when "scientists" limit their investigations so that they coincide with their preset spiritual beliefs, then any possibility for objective science is lost.
In case you havent noticed, the "bogus evidence" attacks are mostly upon science .Claims of incorrect conclusions are, for the most part, given in evidence by scientists who have neither much training nor experience in the subjects they claim credibility.

0 Replies

Let me emphasize that I don't advocate any arbitrary limitations on scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe and the further development of the models on which current theory is based. I would oppose any attempt to enforce a literal interpretation of the scriptural text of any religion on the teaching of science at any level in our educational system. At the same time I am also aware of, and oppose, the agenda of modern proponents of the new secular religion who seek to eliminatew any reference to the possible existence of a Creator or God in public life and , specifically to the case at hand, misrepresent the findings of modern science as excluding even the possibility of a Creator. It is this perception which fuels the movement that is so decried on this thread. With respect to that particular struggle, I find both sides equally absurd and distasteful.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know