Intelligent Design is not creationism

What scientists in cosmology, geology, anthropology, paleoanthtropology, or astronomy has advocated that there are no limitations to science and worshiping a God is anathema? I haven't met nor read any. Please name them.

0 Replies

Tele the only convolution in the discussion is an artifact of the psuedo-intellectual gymnastics performed by the proponents of creationism/ID-iocy, both in any attempt to validate either proposition and in the thoroughly, patently, egregiously absurd attempt to separate ID-iocy from creationism.

That questions remain unanswered by science means nothing more, less, nor other than that questions remain unaswered. Questions pertaining to the origin and cause of the Big Bang are meaningless, in that our frame of reference is established from the Big Bang; whatever if anything fits the description of origin and/or cause for The Big Bang is by definition inconsidereable, it is beyond our experience, the rules by which we observe and comprehend did not exist prior to The Big Bang; the closer our observations get to The Big Bang, the fuzzier becomes our ability to perceive and comprehend the event itself, let alone any precursor or causality. We may never know what if anything there was before, we may never know how it came to happen, but we have determined beyond reasonable doubt it happened and that all we observe and experience originated with it.

0 Replies

Oh aye!

Explain,if you will,the tit at the Superbowl and the fallout resulting.How was that implicit in the BiG BanG which it must have been by your argument.

0 Replies

Oh, c'mon, spendi - that was a stretch even for you.

0 Replies

You mean of course that it's too much of a stretch for you.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

Been there, done that.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

More what exactly? To date no rational arguments or evidence have been forthcoming from you at all!

I've responded to this several times. This thread is about ID not being creationism. It is not a thread devoted to proving ID is science.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

Given that man has your so-called "human-like intelligence" you would be now saying man is able to be a designer. Where is your proof man can be a designer?

Man is already a designer.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

If it is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago
then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator? You make no sense.

You evidently find a contradiction here that I fail to see. Would you agree that studying the supernatural is beyond the scope of science? Would it then make no sense to you if someone claimed that science does not posit a supernatural creator?

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

So where is the scientific method for ID? You have provided none.

That's because this a thread about ID not being creationism. I'm considering starting a new thread on ID and science. In the meantime you might want to consider this: Can you give me one good reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? I can show you that it can.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

Now show me Micah Sparacio's proof for his claims as per your claim that "ID is limited by the scientific method."

Now show me Mike Gene's proof for his claims as per your claim that "ID is limited by the scientific method."

Look, you asked for evidence that ID posits natural designers as if you thought that would stump me. Well, surprise! I answered your challenge. Now you are moving the goal posts. I frankly don't know what the heck you are demanding now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tele the only convolution in the discussion is an artifact of the psuedo-intellectual gymnastics performed by the proponents of creationism/ID-iocy, both in any attempt to validate either proposition and in the thoroughly, patently, egregiously absurd attempt to separate ID-iocy from creationism.

You're good at ranting but short on logic. You don't label Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican members as outright creationists, instead you use the softer term "abstract creationists" even though they obviously believe a supernatual creator was behind the origin of life. On the other hand, you have no problem labeling ID proponents as full-blown creationists for merely suggesting that evidence of design behind the origin of life may be empirically detectable.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

You don't label Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican members as outright creationists, instead you use the softer term "abstract creationists" even though they obviously believe a supernatual creator was behind the origin of life. On the other hand, you have no problem labeling ID proponents as full-blown creationists for merely suggesting that evidence of design behind the origin of life may be empirically detectable.

You are missing a very important distinction, Teleologist.

There is a religious doctrine of creation. "Creationism" refers to a view that creation can be scientifically proven. You seem to have a misunderstanding of both science and religion.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

From your link rl..

Quote:
Reading performance....
The average scale scores
in 2003 for students at grade 8 in
both Catholic and Lutheran schools
were higher than the average score
for those in Conservative Christian
schools.

Quote:
Mathematics Performance
At grade
8, students in Lutheran schools
scored higher on average than students
in Catholic and Conservative
Christian schools in 2003.

Quote:
Science Performance
Figure 7 shows results from the
most recent science assessment in
2000. Fourth-graders in Lutheran
schools scored 8 points higher, on
average, than their counterparts in
Conservative Christian schools.

In fact in every category Conservative Christian schools did no better than other religious schools but in MOST categories they did worse than other religious schools.

Thanks for providing support for my contention rl. :wink: Kids in fundamentalist schools don't do as well.

On the contrary, your contention was that students in religious schools would fare worse than average:

parados wrote:

I hypothesis that the higher religion and the higher fundamentalist states will score lower than mere chance should say they would.

Your position remains unsubstantiated , while my point that students in religious schools would do better:

real life wrote:

Since most studies already indicate that children in private schools and/or home schools (both types are overwhelmingly religiously based schools) tend to score higher in all subject areas, not just science, I'll caution you that you may be in for a surprise.

is supported by the study.

The study pointedly says that students of ALL religious school backgrounds fared better than public school children in ALL subject areas. Of course you avoided quoting that part because it was fatal to your hypothesis.

---------------------------

However, the comparison of Catholic/Lutheran schools to Conservative schools highlights an interesting point and I thank you for bringing it up.

Most conservative schools are very small (less than 100 students) and operate on a shoestring compared to their Catholic/Lutheran counterparts.

(I have some acquaintance with several conservative schools in my area where the teachers were volunteers. And that is not uncommon in other areas of the country.)

Comparing their funding to the public schools reveals a great disadvantage for the conservative schools as well.

They struggle against this handicap, and STILL outscore the public schools handily.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There has been some George and I feel sure that if you contributed more often there may well be an increase.

Despite the severe strictures I have been faced with from the secular humanists it is noticeable that not one single IDer has felt able to lend support.

Perhaps it is because none are willing to engage on the central issue and, instead, divert the discussion to peripheral points. If the ball won't bounce, it is hard to play.

Actually I think my interest in these forums is winding down a bit.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

What scientists in cosmology, geology, anthropology, paleoanthtropology, or astronomy has advocated that there are no limitations to science and worshiping a God is anathema? I haven't met nor read any. Please name them.

There are some, and I could easily name them. However it is not them, but rather some 'consumers' of scientific findings who are the principal advocsates of these ideas, though most do so indirectly and only rarely refer to the issue directly. Instead they frequently mock religion and "religionists" and resist any acknowledgement of the existence or possible existence of a creator in any activity of government, including education. In the narrow issue at hand they restrict the debate to one between Biblical literalism and evolution and use it to expunge any acknowledgement of the inherent limitations of science and its inability to explain our existence.

Timbers remarks above with respect to modern physics makes the point. He notes that our understanding of the processes of physics is growing and may lead us to a more complete understanding of our evolution from the cosmic singularity from which it all sprang. On that we agree fully. However he then leaves the elephant in the room unrecognized. What caused or brought about the Big Bang? His silence and acceptance of the enormous unexplained event defies my understanding.

The record of human attempts to explain our existence and the nature of our consciousness is as old as the historical record of human culkture. The results are embodied in the myths and religions of all cultures. The significance of the question with respect to the conduct of our lives is evident. Science has certainly debunked many details and in some cases central elements of previous human constructs on this matter, but it has not and, I believe in principle cannot, answer the central question. This however does not require that we pretend the question does not exist and that in some form it does not become a central issue in the lives oif every person.

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

If the ball won't bounce, it is hard to play.

One can always try to make it bounce.

The world cannot be relied upon to co-operate.

0 Replies

RL - What do these statistics show other than students given private instruction and therefore more personal attention accel? I don't think the fact that the children are in "religious" schools enhances any actual success.

I went to public schools my entire life. The problems I experianced had nothing to do with Pubic school's secular nature. It had to do with burocracy, and funding.

To actually impress me with any relavance that Religious schooling actually achieves better education than secular education, you would need to show me statistics that compared secular private institutions vs. religious private institutions.

My howntown had a private school on it's campus and it was secular, these kids were brilliant and scored very high in everyway and scored just as well as the kids at the Catholic highschool.

So if the statement is that teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools well benifit children, I'd challange that. If you want to benifit children in public scholls good politics is the only way.

0 Replies

Well, for myself, many of my friends were in a Catholic high school. From personal observations, and not just because I had an A average to begin with an a curriculum heavy in science at the time (well, art too, when they actually had art classes in high school!), the Catholic high school kids were educated poorly in science. This may have changed but I'm not a big subscriber to statistics which too often lie until there have been enough studies to reveal at lease a semblance of the truth.

I do not find that the secular consumers of scientific findings to be preaching bias of anyone believing in God, but they can get animated when Creationism or ID is preached, and I do mean preached. It's a din -- an unapologetic proselytizing that slips into every conversation about this. Sometimes it is shrouded in quasi-scientific rhetoric which can be even more disconcerting.

I repeat, I have know scientific minds going back to my college days when many of my friends were Cal Tech students and professors and none of them, despite their usual secularism, were preaching science -- they encouraged others to know about science. They did not put down religious thinking nor people. Funny, at the same time my significant other was an Episcopalian Priest.

0 Replies

Lightwizard,
First, let me say that I like your avatar. Monsters Inc is my favorite among the movies my grandchildren require me to watch, and Sullie is my favorite character,

I attended Catholic (Jesuit) elementary and high schools and graduated from Cal Tech (Grad School) as well. I generally agree there was a bit less descriptive science in the Catholic school curricula - had to make room for Latin, a modern language, History, Ethics, and mathematics. However what was taught - mathematics, physics and biology - was a strong foundation for what followed. I believe the tradeoff for a few mostly superficial "science" courses in geography or "general science" in favor of mathematics, languages and history was, overall positive.

My experiences at Cal Tech go back a few decades now, but they were generally consistent with what you describe. The focus was on the importance and intellectual beauty of science and not against anything else. I believe the present issues - as I described them - spring more from the general and social/political community than they do from science itself. The secular protagonists use science as the stalking horse to advance a broader agenda, and the fundamentalist zealots react in kind.

A pox on both their houses.

0 Replies

George-

"A pox on both their houses" is throwing the towel in.

If the sensible way has no voice then only one house will have the pox.The other will have silver bells.

The problem with science,as I see it,and don't think I'm not happy about its acheivements,is that it must start from pointlessness.Once the universe is pointless the scientific enquiry is pointless and has only room for self-service.It can have no emotions in the ideal type.But the human being is an emotional creature.The science teacher and the researcher has a pointless bottom line and he is an emotional creature. And he risks conveying pointlessness to the rest of us with the associated angst,alienation and anxiety and the treatment thereof.A "broader agenda" coming into view.Not just asserted and as such easy to ignore.

Of course,one might be cynical and say sensible voices will prevail and it's just a game to shift money into different areas of the economy as Dover residents have discovered, assuming they have discovered it yet.

Many people drop out because of this and then their voice isn't heard.

These debates on A2K are a microcosm in the wider debate and if the towel is thrown in here why should it not be thrown in everywhere else and let them fight it out.Compulsory prayers 3 times a day or Alphaville.

0 Replies

Diminishing interest in A2K is not exactly the same thing as throwing in the towel in, but you do have a point.

I don't see any basis at all for your assertion that Science , does, must, or even should start from a foundation of pointlessness. Quite the contrary is true - much of science has to do with the remarkable inellectual beauty and simplicity of the laws of physics, as we get closer to understandiung them. The "logic" of the material universe and the fine 'tuning' of the fundamental physical constants generally creates a sense of wonder concerning the question of why these things are as they are. There may be a tautology there, but the question does indeed fascinate many scientists.

I don't think science is the enemy here. Instead it is those who would misuse and misrepresent it.

0 Replies

I have perhaps seen only the better examples of both factions as the Episcopalians were expremely broad minded. Although Father Miller did not bring it up in sermons, he was sure of Darwin's and the scientific fact of evolution but he believed in a metaphysical higher power he chose to call God. I certainly didn't hold it against him!

0 Replies

It has been pointed out here time and again that science is not out to disprove notions of gods, but is indifferent to the question. If a god sort of entity (or non entity) sparked the big bang and then caused evolution to happen on Earth, science is not affected. If there is no god, science still is not affected. IDers want to corrupt the work of science by injecting a god into the teaching of it, no matter what the facts may be. That is why they are creationists, like it or not.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Been there, done that.

That's great, I am sure Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene will be talking to the aliens any day now, and all the ID'ers will start worshiping UFO's!

Teleologist wrote:

This thread is about ID not being creationism. It is not a thread devoted to proving ID is science.

Giggle! If you claim it's "not a thread devoted to proving ID is science" then you cannot claim in this same thread "ID is limited by the scientific method". You are the one who moved off topic. I am simply challenging your assertion "ID is limited by the scientific method". And you still can't reply.

Teleologist wrote:

Man is already a designer.

This is great, show me your proof that man is the "intelligent designer" and if as you claim "Man is already a designer" why do ID'ers lend credenceneed to aliens?

Teleologist wrote:

You evidently find a contradiction here that I fail to see.

I'll say it again, it's truly not hard: if it is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator?

Teleologist wrote:

Would you agree that studying the supernatural is beyond the scope of science?

No at all, the scientific method has been applied to the claims of the supernatural very successfully.

Teleologist wrote:

Would it then make no sense to you if someone claimed that science does not posit a supernatural creator?

Would what make no sense to me?

Teleologist wrote:

I'm considering starting a new thread on ID and science.

Then why don't you? You have said you were going to a number of times already, and such a thread was even started in your honor, but hey start one right now, go for it!

Teleologist wrote:

In the meantime you might want to consider this: Can you give me one good reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? I can show you that it can.

Go ahead, show me the teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing, I'm waiting.........

This ought to be good <giggles>

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know