97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:15 pm
You are changing the subject with the Bible bit. We're talking about how the observable universe came into existence. If you accept the proposition that we and the observable universe exist, then you open the question of how that came about. It is true that physics and cosmology have made wonderful progress during the past century in filling in the story about the evolution of the universe. For example, we now know through science that the universe is finite and that it had a beginning. While there are many unresolved questions (some of great import such as dark matter) , we now have a fairly good model of the expansion of the universe, the formation of galaxies, solar systems and planets. However all that progress has intensified and sharpened the ovewrwhelming question of how it all came about -- and on that point science has made no progress whatever, and there is no indication that it ever will.

Did it also "poof" itself into existence????
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:21 pm
c.i. wrote and I think he was being serious-

Quote:
God could not possibly have authored such a book with so many errors, omissions, translations, and revisions that differ in meaning from one to the next.


How do you work that out unless you think God has a similar set of priorities and motivations as you do yourself.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:27 pm
Quote:
In contemplating the origins of the universe. any person, religious or otherwise is confronted with unknowns and the opportunity to make conjectures, none of which can be tested in a scientific sense. There was a creator, or there was not. Neither proposition can be tested by the scientific method. Science does not, and likely cannot, provide a definite answer to this question. One is therefore free to make any conjecture he pleases about this question (god; no god) - influenced, perhaps by the degree to which it interests him.


Before I comment on what you've written above, tell me, what do you understand about the concept of probability?

Quote:
On the other hand one who conjectures that there is no god and goes further to posit that he knows this beyond doubt, indeed knows it scientifically, places his very questionable concept of science above all competing ideas and authority. For him there are no limits - anything may be permissable. The "scientific" practicioners of Marxism impoverished and enchained billions and slaughtered tens of millions in the past century: the Nazi's clouded their beliefs somewhat more cleverly, but likewise admitted no restraint whatever in their actions to further their "scientific" restructuring of Europe.


And another question: Who says they believe there is no god and knows it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Who ever said it, I disagree with entirely.......and if you don't know that by now, I have to wonder how closely you're reading what I've written. Obviously there is more to be found in life than science and intellect. There are feelings and wishes and dreams and fantasies and hopes and desires and all the very tasty treats life has to offer........and the bad come along with the good. But I don't feel compelled to discard or ignore either of these components in life......do you? There are advantages to understanding the structure and function of ourselves and our universe. Some of us, for whatever reason are more interested than others. And if there are areas in which we may not inquire........then what? An undiscovered place. Some people like to keep it that way......and sometimes I empathise. If only........if only they would leave the rest of us to investigate the environment around us without harassment.

Trying to understand how our world has evolved, as you point out, does not and cannot answer the question of is-there-a-god. Indeed it doesn't say anything about that question. So we are all free to develop our own beliefs. So why is the study of the evolution of mankind so upsetting to you?

As far as I can tell by what you've written so far you seem to believe that the scientific study of evolution challenges in some way a belief in God. You say that it's "scientists" that claim they can prove the non-existence of God. But it seems more to me......unless you can enlighten me, that it's you that says scientists say we don't believe in god and we can prove it by the scientific method. Then you proceed to castigate us for this idea that you have assigned to us.

Maybe you were referring to a previous discussion on this thread in which someone did claim that........that well may be, I've been away for some time. So explain, if you please.

I also have some thoughts on your idea that we will not control ourselves without the insistence of an outside authority. You don't seem to take into account that some of us may control ourselves because we can't allow ourselves to do otherwise, that is we have a well functioning conscience. Living my life so that I feel I've been fair and helpful is coming from me and has very little to do with external authority.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
georgeob, sorry to butt in, but as a fellow laborer, might I add that.
When all the above things that convince you to claim that a deity starts it all, or intervenes within the process, when that becomes necessary to continue our investigative work in these respective fields, then we can talk. You see the "hand of God" in many things. I say that nerely gets in the way of a good understanding and good science.
Even Father leMaitre, when first theorizing the Big Bang, stated that he keeps his compartments free. and when Albert Einstein, initially LeMaitre's biggest critic, later didnt accept Quantum mechanics because he felt that the universe was more ordered and predictable, didnt Einstein confuse a purely philosophical argument for scientific inquiry? I see these arguments about poofing and Banging as a subject that may have to wait a few more decades
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:51 pm
Quote:
My faith in Lola is confirmed by this-

Quote:
oh, I see now why you object. Spendi, you believe (I think I understand you correctly here) the masses need to be controlled and religion is the best way to do it.


Bullseye babe.But I would only use the word "controlled" in exalted company.Normally I would say that it is best for the masses own sake not to put their hand in the fire to experiment on how hot it is and to take the advice of experience.They generally don't like the idea that they are being "controlled" for some reason or other which escapes me.Presumably they can't imagine what out of control masses look like in the flesh.I can't recall not being under the control of some force or other except maybe when I was dreaming and I don't pay any attention to dreams.



Spendi.........you're a sweetheart and oh, btw........may I kiss your ring?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:01 pm
Lola-

Good to see you again.

Who are you addressing in the above?Is it George?

But

Quote:
If only........if only they would leave the rest of us to investigate the environment around us without harassment.


You are doing.What is stopping you?You don't think I am going to sit idly by if anybody tries to stop you investigating the environment around you do you?

I would switch sides in a jiffy if I thought there was the slightest danger of that.Indeed I might consider going to the wall on a thing as drastic as that.

Well-life wouldn't be worth living if intelligent ladies were prevented from investigating the surrounding environment.It would be inhuman.I'd sooner be dead.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:11 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I find it odd that one could scorn the notion that a creator or god could "poof" himself into existence, while, at the same time, blandly accepting that the observable universe did "poof" itself into existence. That conjunction of beliefs is both illogical and inconsistent.


I sorta see where you're comming from with this, and I see some problems with it. First is the "poof" concept itself; no evidence for it, no evidence against it, ergo pure conjecture and as such foundationally inconsistent with any logical analysis. Next, there is an obsevable universe, which proves that a universe not only can but does exist. There is no reason to assume other universes must not exist - assuming either they do or they do not again is naught but conjecture (though mathematically, not only are "other" universes possible, in some instances they are entailed). Next, this universe exists - there is no reason to assume some other universe or other thing, condition, or state of being did not preceed this one, nor that one did - conjecture again. Yet another problem relates to the "poof" concept in a way; there is no valid reason to assume causation, as the necessary data simply is unavailable. Now, while causation appears to us to be a given, only by assumption may causation be deemed an absolute. All in all, it comes down to the problem of The Unkown; its unknown. For some folks, thats a real big, scary problem which requires a comforting, convenient answer. For others, its an interesting problem, with far more questions than answers, and worth vigorously pursuing for that very reason, and requires that one be able to accept "I dunno yet" as an appropriate answer-pending-availability-of-further-data. And for yet others, its a ho-hum; no problem at all since it doesn't register in their consciousness; there is neither question nor answer.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:14 pm
Quote:
You are doing.What is stopping you?You don't think I am going to sit idly by if anybody tries to stop you investigating the environment around you do you?

I would switch sides in a jiffy if I thought there was the slightest danger of that.Indeed I might consider going to the wall on a thing as drastic as that.


Then you better get yourself over here right away because the situation is graver than you think. Actually I agree with you that scientists and science is not in much long term danger, progress will march on. However, I am worried about progress being slowed while I'm here to enjoy. These people are ruining my fun and they well may set us back at least 50 years. Damn! It's so annoying.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:17 pm
george wrote:
Quote:
I find it odd that one could scorn the notion that a creator or god could "poof" himself into existence, while, at the same time, blandly accepting that the observable universe did "poof" itself into existence. That conjunction of beliefs is both illogical and inconsistent.


Exactly my point george, so why would we assume the event was God rather than a big poof without a personality.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:18 pm
Lola,

You are beating a dead horse. I have no quarrel with the scientific development of evolutionary models, or with science itself, for that matter. I don't think that either are at all inconsistent with the idea of god or a creator. I don't insist that anyone believe anything in particular about his/her origins, the presence or lack thereof of a spiritual element in their natures, or anything else.

I do know something about probability theory - I once even taught the subject at the undergraduate level for the University of Virginia.

I do agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. However I do note that many, perhaps a majority, of those here on this thread who argue against ID in the schools explicitly say or at least strongly imply that science is either incompatible with the idea of a creator or at least makes the concept unnecessary for a thinking person. As I'm sure you will agree, that is an unsupportable and illogical conclusion.

I have made it clear that I don't advocate the mixing of theology and science in our schools. However I don't wish to see the unscientific de facto indoctrination of children in the arguable proposition that there is no creator, come about merely as a result of the complete absence of any grounding in the philosophic question in that same educational system. Science offers no explanation whatever with regard to our existence and that of the observable universe. Instead, science offers us intelligable and testable models for the processes by which nature functions and operates -- that's all.


I really don't know what others believe about the possibility of a creator. Frank Apisa seems to be sure he knows that there is none, but beyond that, I don't suppose I know what you. Farmerman or others truly bellieve.

With respect to the question of moral restraints on behavior or actions --- I am sure you have and exercise your own limits by your own code. I certainly don't wish to imply that the godless are necessarily immoral or barbaric in their behavior. However, I do note that, absent the idea of a god, there is nothing logically to prevent you or anyone from developing a personal code that permits anything. Further, I note that in the governance of people, those political systems that explicitly reject the existence of an higher power or authority generally have a rather consistently grim record of dealing with people who oppose them or merely stand in the way of what they wish to do. Clearly the belief in or acceptance of the idea of a creator is no guarantee of good behavior on the part of individuals, societies, or governments. However, for governments in particular, avowed disbelief correlates very strongly with murder and oppression.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:25 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
However I do note that many, perhaps a majority, of those here on this thread who argue against ID in the schools explicitly say or at least strongly imply that science is either incompatible with the idea of a creator or at least makes the concept unnecessary for a thinking person.


I don't know of anyone on this thread or any other who has said or implied this.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Is there anyone reading this who asserts what George suggested?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:28 pm
george wrote:
Further, I note that in the governance of people, those political systems that explicitly reject the existence of ahy higher power oir authority generally have a rather consistently grim record of dealing with people who oppose them or merely stand in the way of what they wish to do.

It doesn't take much effort to find this statement to be false if you exclude governents that establishes laws for the benefit of the masses.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:34 pm
Quote:
However, I do note that, absent the ideas of a god, there is nothing logically to prevent you or anyone from developing a personal code that permits anything.


Explain your reasoning here please. It's logical that absent the idea of a god that I have no other reason for moral behavior? I don't follow you. You can't think of any other reason why I might want to consider the effect of my behavior on others? I may make a mistake in my behavior, thinking I was doing what is best.......however nothing stops a believer from making similar mistakes. Come on george.....

Some of us have internalized our conscience and I for one don't feel any need to either give credit to or blame a supernatural being outside of myself. I can account for myself.

And what's wrong with beating a dead horse? He's dead already, we might as well take out our exciting aggressive feelings on the poor dear thing.

Quote:
Frank Apisa seems to be sure he knows that there is none, but beyond that, I don't suppose I know what you Farmerman or others truly bellieve.


This is the funniest thing you've ever said, george. Everybody knows Frank is evangelically agnostic. very funny.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:35 pm
I'm w/you, ros; while the ID-iot proposition is right out as any sort of intellectually honest construct, I have no problem whatsoever with faith-based belief systems, so long as proponents of same do not seek to hold their own particular belief system ascendant over any other. There's the rub, of course, and if not the prime among the roots of all evil closely enough entwined to be well within the concept.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
george wrote:
Further, I note that in the governance of people, those political systems that explicitly reject the existence of ahy higher power oir authority generally have a rather consistently grim record of dealing with people who oppose them or merely stand in the way of what they wish to do.

It doesn't take much effort to find this statement to be false if you exclude governents that establishes laws for the benefit of the masses.


Yes, c.i. and what about those politial systems which were grounded in absolute authority of God and the Bible? Tell Galileo about it.

There are all kinds of abuses of power. Belief in God has nothing to do with it. One excuse is as good as another when it comes to that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:49 pm
george ob, paraphrasing himself said
Quote:
I have made it clear that I don't advocate the mixing of theology and science in our schools. However I don't wish to see the unscientific de facto indoctrination of children in the arguable proposition that there is no creator, come about merely as a result of the complete absence of any grounding in the philosophic question in that same educational system.

Well, I must say that he did say this, and this was the fisrt point of misunderstanding that I originally had with george. Having now all, sort of heard him and we all understand, lets have a group hug.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:52 pm
Ill be leaving for the wilds of Andean Argentina in a few weeks and I dont wanna leave with everybody on different pages. (except spendi, nobody will ever know what particular page hes reading from at any moment)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:53 pm
Interesting storm of replies here.

Cicerone seems to be saying that 'it is easy to prove the statement false -- if you exclude all the cases for which it is true. (leaving, by the way, virtually nothing left).

timber, with evident satisfaction in the balance of his views, says that it is OK for the "ID-iots" to hold to their intellectually dishonest faith based belief systems -- if they do not hold them ascendant over any other. A right that timber evidently restricts to himself or those of like mind.

Lola - I do not claim that, absent a belief in god, you will necessarily regard everything as permissable -- only that without god there is nothing logically or morally to prevent you from doing so. This is hardly a novel idea in philosophical commentary.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:56 pm
farmerman wrote:
Ill be leaving for the wilds of Andean Argentina in a few weeks and I dont wanna leave with everybody on different pages. (except spendi, nobody will ever know what particular page hes reading from at any moment)


Have a great trip!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:16 pm
george, That's not what I said. There are many countries that are not based on the christian religion that has no better or worse moral problems as with christian ones. As Lola suggested, history seems to hold that the reverse is more true of what you are trying to imply about christian nations having better morals. You'll have to provide proof of this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 06:00:34