Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

You are beating a dead horse C.I. We agree on the limitations of science. That, of course was my central point. Science is not an alternative to religion, and religion is not necessarily opposed to science. If you choose to limit the discussion to Darwin vs the Book of Genesis, you are not fairly representing either science or religion.

0 Replies

george, Good point: however, please don't depend on this old man's memory to remember earlier discussions that may have made your point clear. My response is usually limited to the most recent post, and even that is not dependable.

0 Replies

No problem. I tried - many pages back - to make the point that, because our public education system provides no required grounding whatsoever in philosophy, and because people of limited vision and understanding appear to dominate the teaching of 'science' in our educational system, the net effect is an implicit indoctrination in the false premise that evolution necessarily explains the existence of the universe and man's consciousness. The recognition of this unscientific indoctrination is, in my view, what motivates those who oppose the current structure.

Unfortunately both sides of the discussion are trivialized by people who, either from a lack of understanding or by choice, limit the domain of the discussion in self-serving ways. I wasn't particularly successful in broadening the domain of discussion, and the mindless bickering continued. Spendius has approached this problem from a different perspective, and may have been more persuasive and effective in his argument.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Parados wrote:
Science won't adjust to religion because it is based on observations and testing. Religion must adjust to science to survive.

What about the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Hutterites in the plains of Canada, and other fundamentalist religious communities like them? They have almost completely rejected science and the modern life it helped create. And their religion is surviving just fine.

There is a difference between denying yourself the use of modern conveniences and denying that such items can exist. Religion doesn't have to use the products of science but they have to accept that they do exist. If a Hutterite community was to teach that there is no such thing as cars it would soon find itself out of touch with reality from the standpoint of its members.

It does raise the question of how long a religion can exist if they point to science as the work of the devil. We do see that from fundamentalist religions today. Will they ultimately survive and flourish or will they remain limited in their appeal.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Parados wrote:
Science won't adjust to religion because it is based on observations and testing. Religion must adjust to science to survive.

What about the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Hutterites in the plains of Canada, and other fundamentalist religious communities like them? They have almost completely rejected science and the modern life it helped create. And their religion is surviving just fine.

Good point - pehaps that has to do with the fact they aren't out there trying to push their theist beliefs off on other folks.

0 Replies

parados, If the past is any indication of what we can expect in the future from religion, fundamentalist religions will flourish, because faith is not based on logic, common sense, or science.

Science would not survive if any of the theories promulgated through repeated observation and study had as many inconsistencies, errors, and omissions found in the bible. Look how religion is still growing, and how many are now willing to strap bombs on themselves for their god to kill as many innocents as possible.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

parados wrote:

Are you asking if we can have science AND religion? I think we can but they have to live in harmony. Science won't adjust to religion because it is based on observations and testing. Religion must adjust to science to survive.

This observation will perhaps make sense when science comes up with an explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe of which it aspires to be the codification.

Not at all george. I have always said that they deal with different areas of expertise. But in dealing with their own areas if they encroach on the other they must provide some real substantial reasoning that can battle on the field of the other.

Science deals with how. Religion and philosophy deals with why. I don't think science can ever really answer the why because it is so ethereal in its question.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

parados, If the past is any indication of what we can expect in the future from religion, fundamentalist religions will flourish, because faith is not based on logic, common sense, or science.

Science would not survive if any of the theories promulgated through repeated observation and study had as many inconsistencies, errors, and omissions found in the bible. Look how religion is still growing, and how many are now willing to strap bombs on themselves for their god to kill as many innocents as possible.

Faith is based on a desire to know why. Why are we here? What is our purpose? It is the question man has asked since time began. Some people have turned to faith. Others have turned to other philosphies. Some people just don't care but are happy to just exist.

It is easy to take over the minds of some of those questioning the why and give them purpose. It always will be so.

Spendius is correct about one thing. The only way to fight science is if there is one religion that purports to have all the answers. That will never happen because the thirst for knowledge is a double edged sword. It asks how as well as why.

0 Replies

parados, Understood; the "why" will always remain philosophical.

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

Spendius is correct about one thing. The only way to fight science is if there is one religion that purports to have all the answers.

I don't want to fight science at all.I want to use it in an orderly manner.That means to treat science as something which is in the service of society and not as an isolated phenomena separated from humanity.That means,to me at least,that it is necessary to have it adjudicated on as the extract from Mr Bush's speech makes plain.
Such an approach requires a respected and competent organisation which has time to digest the latest discoveries and a staff which is not just out for a quick buck or an instant fame based on pandering to a specific group as newspapers do.Even secular adjudication is accepted as we have seen with cloning and with subliminal advertising but such adjudications are carried out by people whose own lives create subjective difficulties.

The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to birth control,abortion,homosexuality in men,(it has never to my knowledge spoken of women),and women priests is not based on Biblical interpretations.It may use them as props but its position is based on sociological awareness derived from such things as confession and observations by its staff, not all of whom are perfect.We don't lose our respect for the military or the police or the Civil Service because a few of their members are exposed for illegal activities.
Evolutionary science is the same.It is a pointless activity in itself.It has to be related to a society of human beings seeking happiness and thus it has to take its place with other ideas and not seek to dominate them and that place cannot be left to the evolution scientists whose very expertise and personal subjectivity as family men and women prevents to some extent a balanced view.

So I agree with George's post above but we two have been got at by Jesuits.(Thank goodness).

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

parados wrote-

Quote:
Spendius is correct about one thing. The only way to fight science is if there is one religion that purports to have all the answers.

I don't want to fight science at all.I want to use it in an orderly manner.That means to treat science as something which is in the service of society and not as an isolated phenomena separated from humanity.That means,to me at least,that it is necessary to have it adjudicated on as the extract from Mr Bush's speech makes plain.
Such an approach requires a respected and competent organisation which has time to digest the latest discoveries and a staff which is not just out for a quick buck or an instant fame based on pandering to a specific group as newspapers do.Even secular adjudication is accepted as we have seen with cloning and with subliminal advertising but such adjudications are carried out by people whose own lives create subjective difficulties.

I don't understand your argument here. Science is adjudicated by science. It has to meet standards or it isn't science. Your argument seems to be that science has to meet your religious standards. That is pure bunk because your religious standards are also subjective. Everything that humans do or think can be ruled to be subjective. How we use the science is different from the science itself. Your argument is not with science but with capitalism and marketing. Just because science tells us how to build a nuclear bomb doesn't mean every person should have one. But because I don't want everyone to have a nuke doesn't mean I distrust the science. The argument for ID distrusts science. It attempts to replace science.

Quote:

The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to birth control,abortion,homosexuality in men,(it has never to my knowledge spoken of women),and women priests is not based on Biblical interpretations.It may use them as props but its position is based on sociological awareness derived from such things as confession and observations by its staff, not all of whom are perfect.We don't lose our respect for the military or the police or the Civil Service because a few of their members are exposed for illegal activities.

What is your point? You tend to make a lot of statements but never reach a conclusion that ties it all together. I don't think most people opposed to ID think all religion is bad. Sure there are a few vocal proponents of that but they are no worse than the IDers, less so, because they have not tried to force science into churches.

Quote:

Evolutionary science is the same.It is a pointless activity in itself.

Only if you think the search for knowledge is pointless, which you appear to do. One could as easily claim that the search for spirituality is a pointless activity.

Quote:

It has to be related to a society of human beings seeking happiness and thus it has to take its place with other ideas and not seek to dominate them and that place cannot be left to the evolution scientists whose very expertise and personal subjectivity as family men and women prevents to some extent a balanced view.

How does a system that requires viewpoints to support themselves with facts and change if the facts don't support the viewpoint equate with a veiw that isnt' balanced. It is VERY balanced because it is always tested. Therein lies the problem with your argument Spendius. You claim that science isn't balanced. You confuse the products sold by huksters out to make a buck with science. The problem is not with science but in your understanding of what science is. Happiness doesn't come from religion. Happiness doesn't come from science. Happiness comes from a lot of different things for each different person. You can't force happiness on people or deny it by saying that science is good or bad or religion is good or bad.

Let me rephrase your statement.

Religion has to be related to a society of human beings seeking happiness and thus it has to take its place with other ideas and not seek to dominate them and that place cannot be left to the religious whose very expertise and personal subjectivity as sinners prevents to some extent a balanced view.

Your own argument shows that you can't dictate what scientists should or shouldn't do unless you feel yourself more capable in some way to judge.

0 Replies

parados writes-

Quote:

I don't understand your argument here. Science is adjudicated by science. It has to meet standards or it isn't science. Your argument seems to be that science has to meet your religious standards. That is pure bunk because your religious standards are also subjective. Everything that humans do or think can be ruled to be subjective. How we use the science is different from the science itself.

I think I would agree to most of that.But science has moved and now large scale funding is necessary and thus politics comes into the equation.
Choices have to be made.Scientists could run away with the whole budget if left to themselves.It is driven,to a large extent,by commercial prospects.

I haven't said that science needs to meet my religious standards.I'm not certain I have any.

I think possible misunderstandings arise in thinking in ideal types which don't really exist.Nothing is perfect.Of course there is always going to be a subjective element based on self preservation in terms of cultures,nations,localities and individuals.Because we can't eliminate that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and a long established and accepted Church with a staff attempting to remove wordly temptations seems to me the best we can do.Such an entity,if strong,can consider fairly expertly all matters having a bearing on scientific progress.Such aspects as psychological,sociological and economic questions none of which the pure scientist has the least concern with in theory.Hence the stereotype of the mad scientist.
Can research into age extension,for example,be conducted freely and open up the possibility of half the population,or more,being retired and in need of various forms of care and all of them with a vote and with inflation linked pensions.We all know how politicians would react to such circumstances.We know how they reacted to nuclear weapon research and how they didn't allow for it leaking to others and now it is a gun at our heads.In fact Klaus Fuchs made the argument at his trial that such research should be available to the whole scientific establishment.Stem cell research could go the same way.It will cross international borders into countries which don't have our moral and ethical position and faced with death which of us would ask how the life saving transplants were produced.I have heard of countries where the organs of executed criminals are made available and if such a trade were lucrative there could be a temptation to execute more criminals.How could science,having no concept of evil or immorality,adjudicate such matters.Let the devil take the hindmost is pure evolution science.

Quote:

I don't think most people opposed to ID think all religion is bad. Sure there are a few vocal proponents of that but they are no worse than the IDers, less so, because they have not tried to force science into churches.

One doesn't need to force science into the Catholic Church because it is automatically in there by dint of it happening.These offshoot religions have neither the scope nor the interest in such things.

Quote:

Only if you think the search for knowledge is pointless, which you appear to do. One could as easily claim that the search for spirituality is a pointless activity.

I was trying to say that scientific knowledge is pointless until we give it a point.I wasn't saying it is pointlesss full stop.There are people who think everything is pointless and a pure scientist is in some difficulty trying to refute such an idea.An IDer can to his own satisfaction.That may be where his beliefs derive from.That it takes God to provide a point to live and to procreate.

Quote:

You claim that science isn't balanced. You confuse the products sold by huksters out to make a buck with science.

Science isn't balanced.I know what pure science is.
Essentially it is playful and disinterested.Show me some science like that.If you can't it isn't me who is confused.But I wouldn't use an emotive word like "hucksters".Science can never be a business proposition.

Quote:

Religion has to be related to a society of human beings seeking happiness and thus it has to take its place with other ideas and not seek to dominate them and that place cannot be left to the religious whose very expertise and personal subjectivity as sinners prevents to some extent a balanced view.

Very nice.As I said-perfection is approached and not reached.The Church seems to me with its avowal of worldly considerations (ahem) to be closer to that perfection than any other insitution.

Quote:

Your own argument shows that you can't dictate what scientists should or shouldn't do unless you feel yourself more capable in some way to judge.

I most certainly don't feel capable of judging such matters but I know who I put my trust in to do so.

I probably lose my meanings sometimes by trying to be brief and discreet.These are very complex issues.I'm basically against the discussion between ID and science being fuelled by invective and certainty and also parents interfering in educational matters.Hardly anything is more subjective than a parent.A man on a cross maybe.

0 Replies

Well said. There is no conflict between the idea of God and the activities of science. Further there is no conflict between science and the idea that a God creeator may have had prupose (or something like it) in his creation. We certainly cannot know the truth of these ideas in scientific terms, but neither can we refute them. These are questions of philosophy. Constructing and carrying out an educational program that by default or implicitly presupposes a certain answer to these philosophic questions is an assault on the philosophic (and logical) underpinnings of science itself.

The moral and social arguments that Spendius has raised also point to the practical merits of a balanced set of choices in these matters. It is noteworthy that those who, in the name of evolution, illogically claim proof for the rejection of religion and theism, offer no scientifis resolution for the moral and social problems that result. Without God everything is indeed permissable.

It is equally true that those who insist on a literal interpretation of Biblical (or even Huindu) scriptures (as opposed to what I regard to be their rather obvious metaphoirical meaning) are making an equivalent error with respect to the accumulation of human knowledge and understanding.

This debate is sustained only by the knowing, unnecessary, and artifical restriction of the domain of discourse by protagonists on both sides. A pox on them both.

0 Replies

george wrote: " Without God everything is indeed permissable."

Not true; in civilized society, we have laws established by the government. We have learned through the ages that we can not legislate morals. It does not take "religious" belief to have morals.

0 Replies

georgeob

Quote:

Without God everything is indeed permissable.

With God, on the other hand, nothing more noble happens, theres just the ability to invoke deities of choice to represent the "winning" side.
As Abe Lincoln said "God may be on our side but Id still rather have Kentucky"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not true; in civilized society, we have laws established by the government. We have learned through the ages that we can not legislate morals. It does not take "religious" belief to have morals.

Nazi Germany was a civilized society and its suppression of the Jews was done according to its law. The Soviet State collectivized agriculture in White Russia and Ukraine in accordfance with its law - notwithstanding that millions were starved to death in the process. The "Laws" a government can established can enbody both morality and hideous immorality. Without the widespread concept of some superior power there is nothing to restrain government. The morals, as you say, must come from the people, and science alone cannot provide them.

farmerman wrote:

With God, on the other hand, nothing more noble happens, theres just the ability to invoke deities of choice to represent the "winning" side.

More noble than what? Is man "noble" only when he supposes he is acting against or without regard to the idea of God? This is a novel and strange concept. I fully agree that religion can be and has been an occasionally stupid and repressive force. That, however, does not mean that the idea of God is itself a limitation on mankind.

0 Replies

georgeob

Quote:

I fully agree that religion can be and has been an occasionally stupid and repressive force.

OCCASIONALLY?
MAaaan, that is theee understatement of 2006. Somebody make a note, georgeob started it at 8:25 PM EST 1/3/2006

0 Replies

What is your definition of occasionally? Would you then agree that avowedly aethistic governments have almost always induilged in repression of the freedom of the people and often horrible exterminations of them when it suited them? If you want to get into the history of this you will come out the loser.

0 Replies

How do you define "exterminations and repression"

Im yankin yer crank here G. Dont go off seeking evidence on how areligious regimes were MORE repressive and prone to "ultimate solutions", well be at it for weeks and I am getting a bit tired of chest thgumping . My New Yers resolution has been to get off the evolution/religion debates cause Im back teaching this spring and Ive found that theres as much crap on Wikipedia ABOUT science as there is on AIG AGAINST science. So , to keep me from mining too many badly vetted sites, Im going to stick to fun, gardening, art, bullshit, some history (Mostly paleo Indians , if I can find another idjit interested in this stuff)< woodworking, D'Arcy flow, (just kidding), and UFOs .
I am totally retooling and Im gonna maybe become the antithesis of my former dull self.

OK , now , where do I start?

0 Replies

I don't think so. Under christianity, governments have approved of women as second class citizens, approved slavery, and many were/are homophobic bigots. Witches were burned in Salem. Crusades and the Inquisition also comes to mind - in addition to northern Ireland, Palestinians and Jews, and now Iraq.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know