Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I would include ID in that field, in which case, yes it is a "proper" belief, but not scientific. Beliefs cannot logically make inroads into scientific territory unless they lose what makes them a belief and subject themselves to the rigours of scientific method... then we can see if they sink or swim like every other scientific theory (used in the correct sense).

but beliefs in heaven can't be science right now

what technology can you use to investigate heaven?

therefore, anything to do with heaven, it's existence or nonexistence, isn't science

it is beleif

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

that is its failing, I am fine with it being discussed outside of a science class, or with peopel believing it

Indeed I am fine with that also. I confess it makes me angry to see something I was brought up to regard in a high degree, namely the effectiveness and undoubted success of scientific method, to be bastardised by creationism by using politics to sneak into science classrooms by the backdoor. Are there many places more crucial to the continuation of human progress and understanding than a school?

I am saying that his reaction to this, which is nothing even remotely threatening to his beliefs, is not based on anything rational.

I think Sava probably has a similarish view to me but he seems to present himself as a bulldozer which doesn't really do him any credit. I will freely admit that when I hear of the continuing infection (as I see it) of ID and creationism, it does make me angry, but the best way to combat it is to hit it at its weakness: lack of logic, consistency and evidence.

I do fear though that the only way to defeat a popular, albeit nonsensical movement, is with populist marketing to counter that; but that's more subject to economics and politics than the scientific accuracy of a given theory.

There is nothing wrong with that, but when he starts threatening death and shouting insutls he is nothing but a fundamentalist of another color.

Agreed. A scientist would never "believe" in a theory... that is why I say "concur" with science. I think it's more acceptable to have faith in scientific method however, but even that is predicated by a kind of meritocracy, in which science has proven itself to thoroughly pwn a priori religious dogma.

With regard to God, in terms of my entirely separate opinion that science one day can overcome God, by that I mean that I think science will one day back-up the stronger abstract case that God does not objectively exist, as the keyboard on my desk exists. Faith and God have their place in the human mind, like love, anger, happiness, music. They may not tangibly exist since they are entirely interpretative, but they make people happy and as long as God isn't forced on anyone else or allowed to hinder other people, then I have no argument!

[Jon Miller]

I personally don't think that there will ever be a truly scientific theory of God/gods

JM

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you can believe ID and still be scientific, you can probably beleive ID and still be an evolutionist

however, the point still stands (which I said, and others have agreed) that ID fails as science

which means it shouldn't be taught in a science class

science, and beleifs are entirely seperate from eachother, unless your beliefs enter the realm of science (that area of the natural world which can be investigated using technology and explained using mathematics)

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

I said that ID fails. And you have listed the reasons why it fails.

I don't see your issue with my post?

I don't think we have any! I suspect that because we're usually opposed on religious threads (like my old "Why I am not a Christian" thread) we're being clear to probe each other's arguments and clarify our own to search for something objectionable to each other .

you can believe ID and still be scientific, you can probably beleive ID and still be an evolutionist

There is an interesting argument by Douglas Adams that proposes that the concept of "life" itself requires a designer, which in terms of God is an internalised human concept... an interesting conclusion would be that to classify an object as living requires a human to perceive it (or a human perceiving oneself).

what technology can you use to investigate heaven?

None of course, but I make a distinction between science and metaphysics. I don't mean that in a wishy-washy "emo glasses and pot philosopher" fashion, I mean that metaphysics is useful for establishing logical frameworks; scientific theory for one, infinity and "ultimate" as another, whereupon we can agree upon definitions and hypothesis, namely the properties of a God that we might at some distant point in the future be able to experiment upon.

I can say quite reasonably, quite scientifically, that an air breathing mammal cannot live its entire life 4km under the Pacific; just as I can argue that an omnipotent, omniscient God would be unable to communicate with us, or be able to interact or observe.

[Whaleboy]

I personally don't think that there will ever be a truly scientific theory of God/gods

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am saying that his reaction to this, which is nothing even remotely threatening to his beliefs, is not based on anything rational.

His escalation of ill will with no justification is the most irrational.

Sava is no biologist, he has a basic understanding of biology but takes the majoirty of the facts of evolution on faith becasue he BELIEVES in sceince.

There is nothing wrong with that, but when he starts threatening death and shouting insutls he is nothing but a fundamentalist of another color.

I say this in every ID thread I participate in, that those who treat science like a faith make it a religion. And that is much more dangerous, buecause Christians 99 percent of the time are not hindering something else to profess their faith, these people do.

You are absolutely wrong.

I do not have "faith" in evolution. Nor do I "believe in science" like a religion.

I accept the scientific method as the best method (to date) of gathering data and then using that data to form hypotheses; and then testing the hypotheses, and then forming theories, and then perhaps forming laws... with the goal of better understanding the universe and life.

Evolution is a theory. I do not just have "faith" in it. Faith is accepting something without proof. I have looked at the evidence. There is data and information that supports evolution. I believe evolution to be a credible theory because THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT...

Your comparison is completely idiotic. I do not worship science. I do not have an altar in my house devoted to SCIENCE. I do not set aside A DAY OF THE WEEK AND GO TO A CHURCH TO WORSHIP SCIENCE.

Science is simply a tool with which to better understand the world around me.

[Patroklos]

Faith and God have their place in the human mind, like love, anger, happiness, music. They may not tangibly exist since they are entirely interpretative, but they make people happy and as long as God isn't forced on anyone else or allowed to hinder other people, then I have no argument

I am happy as long as both sides keep moving without sliting each others throats. I guess thats why I find some of this frustrating. I am trying to advocate/find functional compromises rather than die on hills.

I see ID as the best course, and I don't think the inclusion of "some people think that God designed this process" in my text book either hinders my understanding of the theories mechanics nor keeps me from investigating more using the scientific method.

Hell, religion, or trying to understand the world god gave us, is a hell of a motivation for Christian scientists both now and in the past.

I could really not care less if the line is there or not, but this constant scientific/philisophical road rage bewteen both side's zealots is keeping me from moving down the highway.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Sava




You are absolutely wrong.

I do not have "faith" in evolution. Nor do I "believe in science" like a religion.

I accept the scientific method as the best method (to date) of gathering data and then using that data to form hypotheses; and then testing the hypotheses, and then forming theories, and then perhaps forming laws... with the goal of better understanding the universe and life.

Evolution is a theory. I do not just have "faith" in it. Faith is accepting something without proof. I have looked at the evidence. There is data and information that supports evolution. I believe evolution to be a credible theory because THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT...

Your comparison is completely idiotic. I do not worship science. I do not have an altar in my house devoted to SCIENCE. I do not set aside A DAY OF THE WEEK AND GO TO A CHURCH TO WORSHIP SCIENCE.

Science is simply a tool with which to better understand the world around me.

and you beleive in it

it is still founded on certain assumptions, which you believe in (and that you beleive in them I sight your post as evidence)

beliefs don't say anything about worship, or any of that other stuff

and most people don't understand the evidence that supports evolution, nor know it (they know that it is claimed, but they haven't read the papers themselves), if you have, more power to you

Jon Miller
(I know that I don't have enough time to read biology papers)

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


and you beleive in it

it is still founded on certain assumptions, which you believe in (and that you beleive in them I sight your post as evidence)

beliefs don't say anything about worship, or any of that other stuff

and most people don't understand the evidence that supports evolution, nor know it (they know that it is claimed, but they haven't read the papers themselves), if you have, more power to you

Jon Miller
(I know that I don't have enough time to read biology papers)

the word "believe" is not correct to use...

it is not the same as believing in a God...

and I do understand the evidence that supports evolution... I was in all AP Science classes in High School, and I took 2 AP biology classes in college (all A's, BTW, Biology was easy )... I've also been to various museums and seen a lot of fossils (specifically relating to the evolution of humans)...

the main difference is, if new evidence were to appear that leads to a different conclusion, I would look at the evidence critically, evaluate it, and adjust my opinions accordingly...

I am open minded. I base my beliefs on EVIDENCE and FACTS.

Those that rely on religion and faith do not.

[Patroklos]

Evolution is a theory. I do not just have "faith" in it. Faith is accepting something without proof. I have looked at the evidence. There is data and information that supports evolution. I believe evolution to be a credible theory because THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT...

I did not realize you had multipe PhDs in various sub-fields of bioligy.

Obviously you, the great Sava, do not take the results of experiments around the world at face value but rather perform every one of them yourself. Obviously you poor labouriously over billions of lines of data from a century of investigation and gave you stamp of aproval to each one. God knows you have never read an article about something and simply agreed with what was said. Instead you bured yourself in your trillion dollar bioshere that can stop time and watched all the assumptions of evolution take place personally.

Fine Sava, you are a complete expert on evoluiton, and require no belief or faith in any of its parts because you KNOW it all. Especially the 99 percent of it current science does not know.

Good

But Sava, while you were compressing a millenium of academic work into the 10 odd years of your adult life, did you happen to learn how SPY-1D radar's RF energy is separated into thousands of beams through the phased arrays and then sector to create a 3D image?

Or even why all the mechanics in your PlayStation work.

Or do you take it on faith?

[Sava]

good point Pat

I guess there is some faith is involved... I have faith in academic institutions and the procedures involved with regards to the scientific method. I can trust that the work that is being done is legitimate because it is examined by a community of scientists and peer-reviewed. Every bit of information is scrutinized. Every conclusion must be supported. The t's must be crossed and the i's must be dotted.

There are standards for scientific studies and data collection.

The same cannot be said for religion.

[Whaleboy]

Sava, you might want to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, I suspect you'll find it very interesting and it'll confirm what you already know... still it's very well written

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
the great Sava

QFT

[Sava]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sava, you might want to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, I suspect you'll find it very interesting and it'll confirm what you already know... still it's very well written

I think I have read some of it. IIRC, one of my teachers copied parts of it for us in one of my classes. I think I still have the papers somewhere in my closet.


But thanks for the recommendation. I will check out amazon for it. I have some credit to use.