Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

I have never and would not presume to argue that scientific, mathematical, and logical proof is nonexistent

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at that) it is what you "presume to argue" when you said

Foxfyre wrote:

.....none of us can prove our theories.

I for one try and stay within the confines of English as she is spoke.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have never and would not presume to argue that scientific, mathematical, and logical proof is nonexistent

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at that) it is what you "presume to argue" when you said

Foxfyre wrote:

.....none of us can prove our theories.

I for one try and stay within the confines of English as she is spoke.

Quote:

English as She Is Spoke is the common name of a 19th-century book credited to José da Fonseca and Pedro Carolino, which was intended as a Portuguese-English conversational guide or phrase book, but is regarded as a classic source of unintentional humour.

The humour appears to be a result of dictionary-aided literal translation, which causes idiomatic expressions to be translated inappropriately. For example, the Portuguese phrase chover a cântaros is translated as raining in jars, whereas the idiomatic English translation would be raining buckets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Well Einstein was a brilliant man who tried not to believe in God and failed.

Bunk!!!

Quote:

I agree that "God doesn't play dice with the universe" which I think was his way of saying that there is an order or what appears to be an 'intelligent design' to it all.

Utter bunk!!!

Einstein's ironic use of the word "God" in this comment is a hootwhen used by people like Foxfyre in an attempt to make Einstein look like a "believer in God."

Here is a quote from Einstein on the matter:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

It may be possible to classify him as a deistbut he was more likely an agnostic.

As for the reason for the misrepresented quote...look up "cosmological constant."

0 Replies

Sentence in Portuguese: Tenho vontade de vomitar
Given translation: I have mind to vomit
Idiomatic translation: I feel like vomiting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke

That book had both Spendi and Foxy beat (beet?).

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have never and would not presume to argue that scientific, mathematical, and logical proof is nonexistent
Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at that) it is what you "presume to argue" when you said
Foxfyre wrote:
.....none of us can prove our theories.
I for one try and stay within the confines of English as she is spoke.

Quote:
English as She Is Spoke is the common name of a 19th-century book credited to José da Fonseca and Pedro Carolino, which was intended as a Portuguese-English conversational guide or phrase book, but is regarded as a classic source of unintentional humour.

The humour appears to be a result of dictionary-aided literal translation, which causes idiomatic expressions to be translated inappropriately. For example, the Portuguese phrase chover a cântaros is translated as raining in jars, whereas the idiomatic English translation would be raining buckets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke

But my statement that 'none of us can prove our theories' was within a specific context related to Intelligent Design, the Big Bang, and/or a universe that just happened without any "Intelligent Design" or Creator behind it. Once you put my sentence back into that context, it becomes correct.

(A good scientist never 'proof texts' but considers the conclusion to be drawn from the whole hypothesis and not just that part which is most easily refuted.)

And then we use English CORRECTLY as she is spoke. Smile

0 Replies

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at that):

- Now you wish to argue there is no evidence for the Big Bang theory, thus I await your arguments.
- A conclusion is not drawn from a hypothesis. Conclusions are drawn by examining the data from the experiment.

Sentence in Portuguese: Bem sei o que devo fazer ou me compete.
Given translation: I know well who I have to make.
Idiomatic translation: I know very well what I have to do and what my responsibilities are.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at that):

- Now you wish to argue there is no evidence for the Big Bang theory, thus I await your arguments.
- A conclusion is not drawn from a hypothesis. Conclusions are drawn by examining the data from the experiment.

Sentence in Portuguese: Bem sei o que devo fazer ou me compete.
Given translation: I know well who I have to make.
Idiomatic translation: I know very well what I have to do and what my responsibilities are.

Please show where I have said 'there is no evidence for the Big Bang theory'. And I am still waiting for your PROOF that the Big Bang theory is the absolute right description of the origin of the universe. If you are going say that I said things I didn't say, then we aren't going to have a very productive discussion on this I would think.

0 Replies

Albert Einstein Quotes
Albert Einstein
E = M C2

Albert Einstein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Albert Einstein
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

Albert Einstein
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Albert Einstein, Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

Albert Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

Albert Einstein
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

Albert Einstein
God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Albert Einstein
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein
There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.

Albert Einstein
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Albert Einstein
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Albert EinsteinThe important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.

Albert Einstein
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.

Albert Einstein
I am content in my later years. I have kept my good humor and take neither myself nor the next person seriously.

0 Replies

Albert Einstein wrote:

I am a deeply religious non believer. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

0 Replies

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at):

Foxfyre wrote:

Please show where I have said 'there is no evidence for the Big Bang theory'.

Foxfyre wrote:

.....none of us can prove our theories.

Foxfyre wrote:

And I am still waiting for your PROOF that the Big Bang theory is the absolute right description of the origin of the universe.

I made no such claim.

Sentence in Foxfyre: Well Einstein was a brilliant man who tried not to believe in God and failed.
Given translation: I'd rather to the fishing.
Idiomatic translation: I can say whatever I want, contradict myself at will, and make no sense whatsoever.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Again all other of your views aside (someone else can have at):

Foxfyre wrote:
Please show where I have said 'there is no evidence for the Big Bang theory'.
Foxfyre wrote:
.....none of us can prove our theories.

Foxfyre wrote:
And I am still waiting for your PROOF that the Big Bang theory is the absolute right description of the origin of the universe.
I made no such claim.

Sentence in Foxfyre: Well Einstein was a brilliant man who tried not to believe in God and failed.
Given translation: I'd rather to the fishing.
Idiomatic translation: I can say whatever I want, contradict myself at will, and make no sense whatsoever.

I'm sorry that you think I make no sense. I deny that I have contradicted myself at least in this discussion. I agree Einstein did not believe in a 'personal God' or one that was directly involved with him personally. I also think that a serious study of his life reveals that he did try not to believe in God at all. And I think an honest appraisal of where he finally landed was that he came to accept a spiritual reality of God though most likely in a context different from say a Christian's belief in God.

That is my opinion as well as my opinions on the Big Bang or Intelligent Design. I felt I was allowed to express them. I also thought the context appropriate for this thread. A debate or discussion can't happen without an exchange of ideas, opinions, or proofs when we have them. So far this has been pretty one sided. I asked for Proof of the Big Bang theory within a context that I didn't think there was proof but rather only enough evidence to make it plausible.

At any rate, I hope you find someone more satisfactory to discuss this with.

0 Replies

With all due respect, and interesting though these posts are, I don't think they are of any relevance to the debate as it has developed on here.

Which, of course, does not mean that they have no relevance. I don't suppose that Judge Jones was asked to adjudicate on such matters. The proof or disproof of an intelligent designer is outside of human capability and will never be resolved.

The debate as I see it is to do with the social consequences of teaching evolution theory in American schools.

I do not see how a school teaching evolution theory can have any room for teaching any sort of belief-based morality. Therefore such an approach could only be satisfactory in a community in which there are no belief-based ideas of importance and while such a community may be found in elite scientific circles it does not exist in any real situations outside of those. I would thus confine evolution theory to graduate and post-graduate settings which are voluntary and self-selecting.

I realise that this is an inchoate alpha/beta/ gamma policy of the Brave New World type but given the natural range of human intelligence, the great variety of occupations for which young people are being prepared and the many different traditions and customs which exist in communities of varying degrees of urbanisation, industrialisation and ethnic complexities I don't see how it can be avoided.

We already have alpha/beta/gamma hierarchies, with diffuse overlaps, from an economic point of view. Dover looked from here to be in transition from an exclusively agricultural community to a dormitory extension of urban life. I presume that transition was the cause of the court case at that location.

It is too often the case that the social functions of belief systems, and also the economic and psychological functions, are swept aside as if of no consequence whereas they are all of the utmost importance and take precedence over the exactitude, if such it is, of a narrow scientific context on the chosen ground of a participant.

It is my view that Dover provided an example of that and I would presume that a higher court would place the scientific context in its proper, subservient, role.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
Again, all other of your views aside (someone else can have at it) you claim

Foxfyre wrote:

I asked for Proof of the Big Bang theory

Nope you have not asked for said proof, but you have falsely claimed

Foxfyre wrote:

And I am still waiting for your PROOF that the Big Bang theory is the absolute right description of the origin of the universe.

And I responded in kind with

Chumly wrote:

I made no such claim.

It should be understood that in order for an intelligent dialogue to take place, there must be a substantive exchange on the part of both parties, alas you have not met this obligation.

0 Replies

Spendius writes

Quote:

The debate as I see it is to do with the social consequences of teaching evolution theory in American schools.

We could limit the debate to that, of course, but Wandel didn't specify that when he started the thread.

Of course evolution has to be taught in American schools, and I would hope that the 'gaps' in our knowledge re that would also be taught so that students would not conclude that we already know all there is to know about it.

Intelligent design cannot be taught as anything other than subjective theory and has no place in a science class - EXCEPT - as one more unprovable but possible explanation for the origins of the universe. That can certainly be taught without discounting the Big Bang or any other thoughts on the subject and must be taught without a foray into religious doctrine. In my opinion, that would be the most honest approach.

0 Replies

Spendius writes

Quote:

The debate as I see it is to do with the social consequences of teaching evolution theory in American schools.

We could limit the debate to that, of course, but Wandel didn't specify that when he started the thread.

Of course evolution has to be taught in American schools, and I would hope that the 'gaps' in our knowledge re that would also be taught so that students would not conclude that we already know all there is to know about it.

Intelligent design cannot be taught as anything other than subjective theory and has no place in a science class - EXCEPT - as one more unprovable but possible explanation for the origins of the universe. That can certainly be taught without discounting the Big Bang or any other thoughts on the subject and must be taught without a foray into religious doctrine. In my opinion, that would be the most honest approach.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The proof or disproof of an intelligent designer is outside of human capability and will never be resolved.

Only in as much as you can't disprove the existence of an orange subterranean rabbi compelling you to post whimsically.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre,
Again, all other of your views aside (someone else can have at it) you claim
Foxfyre wrote:
I asked for Proof of the Big Bang theory
Nope you have not asked for said proof, but you have falsely claimed
Foxfyre wrote:
And I am still waiting for your PROOF that the Big Bang theory is the absolute right description of the origin of the universe.
And I responded in kind with
Chumly wrote:
I made no such claim.
It should be understood that in order for an intelligent dialogue to take place, there must be a substantive exchange on the part of both parties, alas you have not met this obligation.

And I did not say that you did make such a claim. I asked for proof of it. It was not intended to be a claim and I apologize if it came across that way. I thought my disclaimers about that in earlier posts would suffice. We seem to talking past each other and not to each other here. I have at least offered my own hypothesis and you have not. So if either of us has not met the obligation for substantive exchange, you must at least share that burden.

At any rate have a great day. Life is too short to sweat the small stuff.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
The proof or disproof of an intelligent designer is outside of human capability and will never be resolved.
Only in as much as you can't disprove the existence of an orange subterranean rabbi compelling you to post whimsically.

I never get that whimsical Chum.

Or at least I hope I don't.

There is no human capacity to prove or disprove the existence or otherwise of an intelligent designer.

There is a human capacity to study the social consequences of the belief or non-belief in such a postulate.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I do not see how a school teaching evolution theory can have any room for teaching any sort of belief-based morality.

Since I have seen no evidence of an absolute morality, I contend all morality is based on some type of subjective belief. Given that morality is unquestionably taught in the same schools as is taught evolution, it's odd you can't see how this is accomplished.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

We could limit the debate to that, of course, but Wandel didn't specify that when he started the thread.

I didn't expect you to pull that pedantic stroke.

wande's initial question requires a one word answer and the thread is ended. As you can see it has not ended. We have moved on. We have evolved.

Quote:

Of course evolution has to be taught in American schools,

Back down the thread it was reported that a large proportion of American biology teachers do indeed pass over the subject.

Serious debaters on here are familiar with the whole thread. You are trying to have it both ways. You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

Intelligent design cannot be taught at all. It is a feeling. Art is the vehicle by which the feeling, an emotion, is imbued.

If you seek an "honest approach" I fear you will need to redesign human nature.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know