View Full Version : Creationism does NOT belong in science.
Now is your chance. Convince me otherwise if you can, and I will refute them. Creationism does NOT belong in science classrooms no matter WHAT. I dare you.
QED. Science didn't find creationism, creationism attached itself to Science. In the search for credibility, appearing credible is far easier than being credible.
~The_Chosen~
06-24-02, 11:57 PM
Agreed, like evolution they should demonstrate some working models, if they can't it ain't science.
fadingCaptain
06-25-02, 01:19 PM
I can only throw in my agreement -
Creationism is based on religion. Religion should not be in schools. Creationism should not be in schools.
That was easy :).
So has no one challenged me yet on this? So everyone here admits defeat? So creationism does NOT belong in science, right? I still dare you to say otherwise:mad:
So everyone here admits defeat?
Generalities are never true. Look again. ;)
Only those who haven't previously posted here can be construed to admit defeat. Even then, it's still an assumption.
Zero, you are on a science forum. Creationists may "troll" through occasionally, but most of our posters in this section of Sciforums have a good grasp of science.
Thus they are not creationists.
Oh. Which forum site can I go to do battle?
Zero:
I am the veritable empress of debating creationists, once given the title:
"Xev Bellringer, who debates creationists until the squeal like Ned Beatty in "Deliverence""
It's bloody pointless though. They will never really open their minds.
However.........
Do you have a newsgroup reader? Try alt.talk.origens - http://www.talkorigins.org/
If not, either post in our religion forum - Tony1 might be up for a fight, and then there is Chosen.
Otherwise, there are a lot of Sciforummers here:
http://www.philosophyforums.com/read.php?TID=117
Have fun. It's part of how I cut my teeth on the 'net. :)
I have to agree with Mr. G and Xev. You are in the wrong place for a battle.
Almost all here will be on your side as creatism doesn't prove anything except how easy it is to jump over to religion when you go to talking proofs. Religion is based on faith, science is not.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2)
I totally absorbed that article before, the issue is in tatters. Loved it.
Zero:
I will attempt to take the side of creationist. I may fail. But it would be fun.
Just a premise. Extrapolate our technological progress for a billion years. I think only 10,000 years may be sufficient - but let us say, mankind in its new incarnation continued for a billion years developed science in genetics, physics, nano technology and so on...
It occurs to me that sometime in future we should be able to understand the initial condition of how universes form. We may be able to control creation of mini universes that are a bubble from our universe but independent. We may be able to accelate the time under this scenario and see for ourselves the formation of stars and planets and life as it is forming. Then the question is: did it hapen by iteself or we created it? (Creationism)
Not convinced. Consider this. Someone gives you a very large nth qbit quantum computer. You decide to play God and create a simulation of the universe and testing your bing bang theory. You let the computer run for six days while you are away on a trip. You come back and surprised to find that not only the computer created the stars but virtual life has formed on planets and these virtual entities are debating if a God has created them?
Is it science or creationism or both?
I'l have to contemplate this deeply, but here are some immediate thoughts.
Did it happen by itself? Well, it is virtual, right? It's not real, no more than a virtual physics experiment. If we actually managed to pull off an experiment where we somehow plant some cells in an ideal planet and life springs up, well yeah. MAnkind would have created the life on that world (and therefore they are all our SLAVES!!! :D just kidding). But the thing is, the cells still have to evolve. Evolution and that whole theory is still needed to explain it. Even if you bring a big huge Noah's ark full of stuff, the whole artificial ecosystem is still going to evolve. The animals/plants with the traits that enable them to survive better will thrive (of course, there is no single best trait. Some areas might require different traits to survive there). Thus, the organisms with those traits and those genes will pass them on to their offspring. The whole passing on of genes will cause further evolution.
And one thing. Just because there is no perfect, good scientific theory for a specific slot (like the creation of life) does NOT mean that you can just stick another theory in there, such as creationism or intelligent design, without sufficient verification by concrete, measurable physical evidence.
And besides, the whole theory about creationism. There is no way you can disprove the existence of a god, or a superior intelligent life form. Creationism is always true!!
But so is the rest of religion. The Koran, the Bible, the whole schmeer. It is all totally, irrefutably true. That is why we do not call it "science", we call it religion. And creationism is also a part of religion. The defining trait of a scientific theory is that it HAS to be disprovable with physical evidence. This was defined by the philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930's (I think).
For example, the theory of relativity. If we saw something moving faster than the speed of light, if we were able to verify that speed, then the whole theory of relativity would come crashing down. It is disprovable, if you only have the evidence. So is evolution. If some super intelligent space aliens came and told us that they 'made' us, the life on earth and that they had manipulated all of our genes to make us evolve, then...if they gave us concrete evidence, there you go. Same thing with the theory of evolution. They are disprovable, this is known as falsifiability. That's why they are scientific theories. And of course, we have NOT found any evidence lke this. They adequately explain the phenomena of the natural world. That's why they became theories in the first place.
Any thoughts on that?
I doubt, Zero, that your aliens vere also genetically modified. atlest they needed to evolve
kmguru, I agree you.
I saw this good movie, btw. Don't remember how was it called. There was that one company made such a computer and even could send people in tht world. But later our hero discovered that their own world was a simulation.
The Faith of Creationsim (http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/AB-Creationism.html).
Creationists base their entire argument on trying to discredit evolution. Because there is no positive evidence for creationism, the typical creationist must have faith in the following eight things:
1) It is necessary to have complete physical evidence to totally explain every single aspect of the natural evolution of life in order for evolution to be accepted as true.
2) Any gap in knowledge means the evidence doesn't exist and will never be discovered. Gaps automatically mean a non-evolutionary entity or force was at work.
3) The non-evolutionary entity or force responsible for life is supernatural in nature (as opposed to, say, extraterrestrial).
4) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to exist.
5) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interact with the natural world.
6) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interrupt or violate the observed regularities ("laws") of nature.
7) The supernatural entity or force responsible for life is a god or gods.
8) In particular, it is the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.
Creationism is obviously a faith-based religion and should not be taught in public school science classrooms.
glaucon
07-07-02, 11:44 AM
Personally, I think it's prima facie evident that Creationism is not science.
However, I'm more concerned with the idea that someone of obvious intelligence is on these boards looking to do 'battle'. Debate is a good thing, but, more often than not on these boards, people are too ready to 'prove' that their point of view is right, regardless of what anyone says. Positive debate should be a dialectic, not a battle.
harrykarry
07-10-02, 05:18 PM
should creationism be taught in the science class?
YES!!!
here's one reason. truth.
maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....
when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.
here's another reason. tradition.
you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...
no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.
personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.
glaucon,
You are right that it should not have been termed "battle". That debate, while it can degrade into such a state, should not in essence be anything other than the stating of opposing views and examples plus rebuttals. The context of the inital post lead me to that thought.
Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry.
I would take issue with the teaching of creationism in schools. What do they teach? That it is in support of the religious right? In otherwords that it would not be there if it were not for them getting government to demand equal time. That is hardly any proof of anything but successful lobbying. I have seen very little evidence to support our teaching and wasting what I consider valuable time on such a subject of so little worth, IMO.
harrykarry
07-11-02, 12:05 PM
i'm not opposed to kids not having to memorize what day god created the sea or the sky... i'm opposed to colleges with an agenda insistant on spewing out science teachers determined to prove to children that creationism and evolution are two completely different things and that the "accurate, self-righteous, i-have-the-facts-to-prove-it" scientist has all the answers in the universe so ergo religion is something fuzzy that you can believe if you want to but it has no relevance regarding the fermament.
i know that the religious right throw out the same horrid attitude but just because science THINKS it knows it all doesn't mean we should throw away everything that can't be proved.
it goes back to this silly little theory of mine, all things in moderation (accept drinking and sex, of course.)
and i hate the religion of intellectualism that is being taught by those science teachers. we have all the answers. we don't need god. how apropos.
harrykarry
07-11-02, 12:09 PM
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...
sorry... i know that's harsh.:bugeye:
harrykarry, I have never felt a need for god, and I have never heard a nowaday scientist say that "we know all the answers".
Generally most are very amazed of what they migtht discover.
oh and the creatonsim theory even from its beginings is quite doubtful. I better "believe" in space aliens creating the first people than some misterious bored divine being
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism why thank you:) it is really nice to hear it. I'm proud...
and about your negativism towards this fact -> this is SCIforums not RELIGforums (thank the holy quark it is not:cool: :p)
harrykarry
07-11-02, 02:47 PM
avatar...i've never felt the need for science either. yet i'm as sure that it has benefited me as much as god has benefited you.
the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews. i can't help but defend the underdog knowing full well i'll get shot. :)
I will make no amends for believing in science. Science shows step by step how we get to where we are. Each fact build upon the previous one. Supportable, tested, and verified. No imaginary being required. Religion on the other hand has little to dole out to say do this and this and this in that way and walla! you will get so and so. Come here, touch it, feel it, inspect it.
Somehow religion falls a bit short in that department.
No one has claimed to know all the answers. We learn as we go. There are many blind paths tried for each proven answer.
I do not accept the tag of "know-it-all". I do state what I think.
harrykarry
the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews.
Defending the Jews during Hitler's reign was a rational, brave and noble gesture. Big difference.
Defending religion is as irrational as the religion itself.
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...
So sorry that our rational views conflict with your irrational views. Some of us must rely on reality in order for the irrational to continue to benefit from sciences contributions, ie. your computer and it's connection to the internet, for example.
You may now continue the religious fantasy already in progress. ;)
harrykarry:
"the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews."
I'd advise you not to use what my ancestors went through to inflate your already over-filled ego, bitch.
I'd expound more on why you are a sleazy protozoan, but you're not worth the ASCII.
Originally posted by harrykarry
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...
Umm...Thank you. Now you do....and you are a part of it...if you want to....
the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews.
I can defend religion too. In science, no one defends the 2000 year old idea that sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat. But in religion they do defend similar thought processes that are not relevant today.
That does not mean, we can not create a decent framework knowing the limitations of humans and the need for emotions and such...but lets discuss for what it really is and not what it was 2000 years ago.
Xev is a jew!:)
from which country did your ancestors come?
Originally posted by harrykarry
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...
sorry... i know that's harsh.:bugeye:
I think if you can present better arguments, we know-it-alls wouldn't seem as rude to you ;)
*Glares at Avatar*
Xev is an athiest, thank you very much. :p
Russia, more or less. Fled to Czeslovakia during the Revolution, then fled Czeslovakia (a few converts to Catholicism in order to get out, I'm not exactly sure how this worked), married into well-established American families - of English/Italian descent.
So while I may be quite divorced from my ancestry, I do get a tweee bit pissed by the likes of Harrykarry.
At least, this is as far back as I can trace my ancestry, going from family stories.
Joeman: Roosky=Russian.
I occasionally delete old posts when I'm really booooooored.
harrykarry
07-11-02, 04:56 PM
gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter and junior sciforum member with a major in art:)
but you know what those evolutionists say about inbreding so consider me outside dna.
Post by all means but on topic...
gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter
You could join the ranks of the rationale.
Criteria: Observe. Look for evidence. Use logic and reasoning. Apply critical thinking.
What's a female doing with a name like "harry"?
Oh well. Welcome to Sciforums.
I'll be nice now.
As the Q said, apply critical thinking, show evidence for your contentions, and you'll fit in just fine.
what were the url's of those two 3d art sites Xev? I can't relocate the thread you mentioned them.
Originally posted by Zero
Any thoughts on that?
Your theory of relativity example can not be experimentally proven but it has physics and mathematical basis. The same is with anti-matter. We haven't found it yet but we know it exists hypothetically. That is science.
Creationism doesn't have any kind of scientific basis whatsoever. Kmguru's innitial condition argument is as good of an argument you will ever hear about. If you ask creationists "Why is the universe 6 billion years old?" Their best counter argument is "because it is made old". It is a theory with no basis therefore I don't consider it a science. No science but just a theory.
What's a female doing with a name like "harry"?
Could be Hari Kari:
1/2 parts brandy1/2 parts cointreau
juice of 1/2 orange
shake
Or perhaps:
hara-kiri [Jap.,=belly-cutting], the traditional Japanese form of honorable suicide, also known by its Chinese equivalent, seppuku.
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0822673.html
Or maybe:
http://sadcassettes.8m.com/harikari.htm
This guy:
http://www.chicagonights.com/features/harrycarry/harry.htm
harrykarry
07-11-02, 05:48 PM
what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back.
i also "observed" anger, smugness, and finally boredom. "where can i go to debate this..."
i observe that if i place myself in the underdog position (yes, i'm a german and yes my ancestry did get killed in the same consentration camps for helping the jews, but that's besides the point) then people get very offended and i'm not sure why? did i somehow play the race card unfairly? and i don't think i'm the only one generalizing the other "side" here.
i'm not so big on "evidence" because i'm running low on poroxide but i don't see anyone providing evidence that there isn't a supernatural entity or force out there occasionally interrupting or violating the observed regularities of nature.
all of those "gaps in knowledge" that evolutionists pooh pooh away as nothing....is that the evidence you are talking about?
logic and reason are over-rated because logic would tell me to quit pissing in the wind but i do it anyways and reason is just one of my ridiculous wanna bes.
if i apply critical thinking to this....i come up with something not very nice so i hesitate.... but what the hell... i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god. my only evidence of that is all of the above and you're right, it's not scientific.
maybe i sound self-righteous. maybe i'm not playing by the science rules. i probably should have had a better science teacher!!!!!!!!!
You are doing fine....harrykarry
You need a cool picture avatar...go get it....
Welcome.....
Oh...the human traits...I can just visualize...harrykarry shows up in to the sciforum gathering...a bunch of members circle around her...sniff...sniff...check out the credentials...check out where to place her....
Humans have not changed in 5000 years....
i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god.
I've never heard that one before. Rather Freudian with Jungian undertones.
gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter
You could just be yourself, rather then the daughter of a fundamentalist preacher.
harrykarry,
Let me talk some senses into you.
First of all look at the bigger picture. People debate on internet because it is fun in their own way. No one can really convince another person, and no one would admit defeat.
With that being said, if you don't want to apply any logic, reason, and critical thinking, what exactly are you in here for?
You can learn a lot of things from other people here, but if you want to learn a fact, trueth, or whatever you call it, you are in the wrong place. You are better off in a library.
You need to come up with a different name. harrykarry is ridiculously. People won't take you seriously no matter you are male or female. Harry Karry is a dead old alcoholic fool. At least he appears to be. Contact the administrator to change your name to something else.
harrykarry
07-11-02, 06:14 PM
is the zenia princess warrior icon taken yet? i also like carol burnett, calamity jane, huck fin, and anything with flowers. maybe i need a icon with some kind of tatoo or dildo. i'll have to think long and hard about this. probably settle for a harry dildo.
have a great evening!
harrykarry
07-11-02, 06:24 PM
Let me talk some senses into you.
ahhh, i think i already have too many senses. i'm only here because it's a safe place to contain myself (if you know what i mean).
and do i really want you to take me seriously?
i think not.
Got out of harry karry posts....
...it's a safe place to contain myself ...with...long and hard ...dildo...
...(if you know what i mean)...
Now I know....:D
Is not that fun....
Is creationism true? OF COURSE, it is the absolute truth, no one can disprove it. I did not say that it was not a truth. I said it was.
No one can disprove it, therefore it does not belong in the science classroom. For someything to be scientific, it must be vulnerable to physical evidence that suggests otherwise. Read up on Karl Popper's phiolosophical works if you wish to rise up out of your current state and be enlightened.
Am I god? Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry. Such attacks will do nothing but earn you a cold, amused but somewhat sympathetic silence from the sciforum gurus. WNDWAA. (surely you know what THAT means?)
I am only staunchly against teachign creationism in SCIENCE classrooms. Why? It is unscientific, that's why. IT can not be disproved (how do you disprove the notion of a god?), therfore it is not scientific. There is another name for such "truth", it is called "religion".
And frankly, I hope you have heard of the separation of church and state. Teaching stuff about your religion, and the whole creationism effort threatens that separation.
All views deserve respect, but under only one condition. The view must not threaten or discriminate against any particuluar people. Creationism claims that the christian viewpoint is the only correct one. If it doesn't register in your brain, I'll tell you that freedom is also restricted under the condition that one does NOT threaten or reduce any other person's freedom.
I'm sure other people have more to say. Xev, any thoughts? (one of the few intelligent and rational people in these forums)
what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back.
I guess this is what you would expect in a site where "sciforums" is the title. However, I did state My opinions and not some pack's idea. If it seemed that way, it was coincidence of the moment. Nor was it meant to be smug but rather a statement of how I feel. If it came across that way, then my apologies for not being clearer.
harry:
"what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back. "
First off, we are not "evolutionists" any more than physicists are "relativityists" or "Newton's second lawists". Evolution is proven scientific theory, and as scientists, we subscribe to it.
"i observe that if i place myself in the underdog position (yes, i'm a german and yes my ancestry did get killed in the same consentration camps for helping the jews, but that's besides the point) then people get very offended and i'm not sure why? did i somehow play the race card unfairly? and i don't think i'm the only one generalizing the other "side" here."
It is not your placing yourself in the underdog position, but your equating of an anonymous post on a internet forum with an act of heroism.
You cheapen the sacrifice that (virtually no Germans did this, don't decieve yourself) certain heroes made when you compare posting against the grain to sacrificing your life.
i'm not so big on "evidence" because i'm running low on poroxide but i don't see anyone providing evidence that there isn't a supernatural entity or force out there occasionally interrupting or violating the observed regularities of nature.
First, it is not fair to ask us to prove a negative.
Second, we never claimed that there wasn't, or that such was impossible.
So quit injecting red herrings into the discussion.
all of those "gaps in knowledge" that evolutionists pooh pooh away as nothing....is that the evidence you are talking about?
"Gaps in knowledge"? What gaps?
logic and reason are over-rated because logic would tell me to quit pissing in the wind but i do it anyways and reason is just one of my ridiculous wanna bes.
One must always balance logic and emotion, yes?
if i apply critical thinking to this....i come up with something not very nice so i hesitate.... but what the hell... i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god. my only evidence of that is all of the above and you're right, it's not scientific.
I would advise you not to insult our fathers. It is cowardly, as they are not here to defend themselves, and another red herring.
maybe i sound self-righteous. maybe i'm not playing by the science rules. i probably should have had a better science teacher!!!!!!!!!
It is never too late to learn. Try Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for an introduction to the scientific method.
This is a good site on critical thinking and skepticism:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/skeptic.html
As for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://answersinscience.org/
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
...and do i really want you to take me seriously? i think not.
HK,
Then you've come to the right place. ;) :p
Emfuser
07-18-02, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Joeman
Your theory of relativity example can not be experimentally proven but it has physics and mathematical basis. The same is with anti-matter. We haven't found it yet but we know it exists hypothetically. That is science.
We have indeed "found" anti-matter. It is naturally occuring. There are several nuclides that emit positrons (the anti-matter companion to electrons), we've created anti-protons, and even gone so far as to put the two together and make anti-hydrogen.
See, you learn something new every day. :D
harrykarry
07-19-02, 01:59 PM
Wow!!!!!
Someone on sciforum who knows science.... Welcome strange one.
Damonmordre
07-19-02, 02:20 PM
I love this I have never posted here before but I figure I will give food for thought in the realm of creationism and push you to think farther than man's natural tendency to known what we don't. Ok first in regards to a "religion" (disgusting word) you have two here that are disputed. If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion. I being human have been taught that I must have faith in a big bang theory that offsets natures natural tendency to decay and believe that it will improve. Take humans for example disease gets worse our bodies fall apart as we get older and the only thing that appears to improve is our knowledge. I would have an easier time believeing in a creation that is slowly imploding because of nature's natural tendency toward decay, than to believe that our universe is improving itself by stars collapsing and and colliding with other stars.
See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.
It is funny because take creationism and fold it into God creating a race of humans that used 100% of their brain and they decided they didn't want to serve God because they could be Gods themselves. So being intelligent as God appears he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God. Seeing there that God gave us a choice.
If you look at the world and see the differences in our landscapes and other unexplainable issues. One large such unexplainable land formation would be all of South America. It looks like and even scientific evidence suggest that that continent at one time boasted a some 50 million people. Yet in all our knowledge something major and aside from the meteor killing the dinosaurs caused a whole civilization from disappearing. There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.
If you read the beginning of the bible you will notice it took God six days to create earth and man and woman. Then it says that God on the fifth day created Adam and Eve. My last food of thought for you: why create man and woman and then state that you created Adam and Eve.
Yes I am a christian I don't question Gods plans but enjoy entertaining interesting thoughts of what he did and will do. I have experienced his spirit and witnessed unbelievable things. I also enjoy what science does in this life because it explains his simple plan and idea. Solar system is a large model of and Atom
Enjoy and butcher if you like. :D
god first created Adam and Lilith , only then Eve, because Lilith didn't like to be pasive in sex with Adam.
Hey, I LOVE it when a girl is nice and aggressive in the sack!
fadingCaptain
07-19-02, 02:52 PM
damon,
"religion" (disgusting word)
Why do you think religion is a disgusting word?
If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion
I'm not following you. What religion is evolution a part of? You just said science should only teach that it should prove theory . Umm that would include evolution. If science is the religion then we shouldn't teach science???
See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.
Maybe you are confusing 'science' with 'scientology' :). How is science a religion?
he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God.
Humans only use 10% of their brain? Show me the evidence of this.
There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.
There is no physical evidence because you are talking nonsense.
harrykarry
07-19-02, 03:27 PM
hey newby, get ready to be spanked. how dare you say that science is a religion ;)
the fine attenders to this discussion claim the need for "rationale."
they take pride in observing, in evidence, in logic and reason, and of course applying critical thinking.
your observations of god and your logic and reason for interpreting what you know, your means of applying critical thinking.... even your evidence....doesn't count here.
oops... is that part of the religion of science?... "only our shit counts..." gee, imagine a religion being close-minded.
that would be akin to me not being sarcastic!!!!
and why do you think god made man and woman and then adam and eve? is that correct. is that what the bible says? and which version?
Damonmordre
07-19-02, 03:30 PM
I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.
Yes that would be the best term scientology and yes if they want a separation of church and state then science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it. I do like the teaching of how certain things operate. Thank you Fadingcaptain for pointing things out so I could clarify myself. Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is. That better :)
Well here is a small answer to the other thing about proof for the 10%. I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited in because we were again made exactly after the image of God and he can see the past, present, and future. He also is not lacking on the learning level we are because he is able to do all math, all variables, and develope the best strategies for correct his misjudgements or his own flaws. We as humans lack in one area but are better in some and I feel that we should be good in all areas such as God. The only thing is our mind is limited because our memory can't be completely used. That is the best I can do because even science is still trying to understand the mind and to give a scientific answer for this when even science hasn't come up with one is just a tad bit difficult :p
With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared. That would be like a 5 Houston cities dissappearing with no bodies or buildings being there anymore.
Well I hope I gave a better explanation for my theories.
I always invite criticism because it helps refine my thinking
Thank you Fading
Damonmordre
07-19-02, 04:50 PM
This is where is states that Harrykarry
Genesis Chapter 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Chapter 2
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the Lord God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Why create man twice also Kane found a wife in the land of NOD if God hadn't had two creations then where did his wife come from.
I don't question the Lord but I hear and I see to receive more truth from him.
fadingCaptain
07-19-02, 05:47 PM
Damon,
I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that religion is man's word...
science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it
How can you prove something as the absolute truth? There are people that still believe the earth is flat..should we remove the notion that the earth is round from school? After all, it isn't fair to the flat earth society...The point is that the theory of evolution is generally accepted in the scientific community as supported by evidence.
Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is
Sorry, but that still doesn't work. You said earlier that : religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up.
How does belief in evolution fit this definition? It doesn't because religion is based upon spirituality and belief in a supernatural power.
I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited
The reason I asked was because I think this is a myth that is widely regarded as true. There is no evidence to support this and last I checked there aren't any sections of the brain that have no purpose. It seems to me that this is a wive's tale. You are right though in that we really still do not know how the brain works and have alot to learn through science.
With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared.
If there is no evidence, where did you come by this idea? Did you read it or did someone tell it to you? I would be highly skeptical if there is no shred of evidence to back the claim. That's just me though :).
Thanks for replying...I enjoy these discussions because it helps me refine my thinking also :D.
Originally posted by harrykarry
hey newby, get ready to be spanked. how dare you say that science is a religion ;)
Pathetic. You only have 20+ posts and you're calling someone else a newbie.
Originally posted by Avatar
god first created Adam and Lilith , only then Eve, because Lilith didn't like to be pasive in sex with Adam.
Lilith??? Who the hell is that?
You don't know?!
ok->
I no longer have the URL of that page, it's copied on my hdd, and I can't remember from where I got the paper.
Lilith - We Hardly Knew You
There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied. You say you have lost all recollection of it, remember . . . You say there are not words to describe it, you say it does not exist. But remember. Make an effort to remember. Or, failing that, invent.
I started out this project in the hope that I could write something about Lilith. As a topic, Lilith seemed a great idea for a class rooted firmly in feminism; Lilith, who was Adam's first wife as the story goes. The strong female role model around whose banner rally many feminists, the symbolic woman who stands on her own, has a power all her own. Someone who lives outside of the realm of patriarchy, and needs no male figures, in fact someone who shuns the male altogether. And yet, as I sit here with research material strewn about from Jewish texts to World Wide Web URLs that go nowhere, I look at these papers and have to wonder if the viewpoint we have built is entirely correct. Perhaps it would be better if I were not to start by asking the question, "who is Lilith?" but rather "what is Lilith?" For the sake of clarity, I am going to divide this paper into three portions: one which explores the closest I have been able to come to an a priori account of Lilith, predating Biblical or Talmudic references. A second portion that will deal with the original question, "who is Lilith?" as people from scholars to the media have come to widely understand her. Finally, a portion that explores how all of the information has come to manifest today, and the implications this may have on feminism as a whole. In my research, I have found that in order to understand the present, we must deal with the past, or in this case, the non prevalent idea, or place of origin outside of Western thinking. To this end, I will begin with the pre-Biblical accounts of Lilith, follow with the Biblical ideas, and end with manifestations and ideas about how all of the information to be presented has come together.
PART ONE
"…In the Beginning…"
The earliest text of any kind pertaining to Lilith that I was able to locate comes from an arguable translation of a Gilgamesh Prologue. The Gilgamesh myth dates back as far as ancient Babylonia and Sumer. The story of Gilgamesh is among the first epic writings found. Gilgamesh was considered in early times, that is, pre-Middle Ages, to be an historical character. The lifetime of the historical Gilgamesh cannot be accurately determined, however, it is generally agreed that he lived between 2800 and 2500 BCE (See Dalley, 40). The passage that should concern us for this writing is as follows: "a dragon had built its nest at the foot of a tree/the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown/and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle/But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight/came to her rescue" (Humm, 1 from Kramer 38:1f).
Taking this passage at face value, one can assume that Lilith is not even human, that in fact she is a demon. She has no real 'power' per se either. The story goes on to tell of how Gilgamesh vanquishes the dragon, at which time the Zu- bird flew away, and Lilith flees into the woods, "petrified with fear". The image of Lilith portrayed in this short passage is one of a 'demon' whose attendance can be construed to be little more than an annoyance, or at best, an evil presence. There is reason to believe that Lilith is without gender, or at least of no particular gender. "[T]he father of Gilgamesh was a lillu, (a man with demonic qualities)" (Dalley, 40). This passage about Gilgamesh's father may furthermore indicate that the 'qualities' possessed may not be evil, but rather only extraordinary. It is difficult to believe that a hero as great as Gilgamesh would be born of demonic stock; rather, it seems likely that Gilgamesh's parentage would have to be special to endow him with the qualities he possesses which make all of his heroic adventures possible.
The word 'demon' may be particularly apt in that it may also describe an evil spirit. Aaron Leitch makes an interesting observation about the etymology of the name Lilith:
In Sumerian, the word "lil" means "air" . . . The oldest known term relating to Lilith would be the Sumerian word "lili" (plural "lilitu"), which seems to imply the same definition as our word, "spirit". In many ancient cultures, the same word for "air" or "breath" would also be used for "spirit" . . . Therefore, the Lilitu were either a specific type of demon, or were simply "spirits" in general (Leitch, 1).
At the very heart of the Lilith myth, it is a reasonable possibility that the name, and indeed what came to be the being Lilith, represents nothing more than a spirit or an apparition. By definition, a "spirit" can be thought of as merely the immortal, nonphysical part of humanity, or the sum of an individual's mental and moral qualities. This is not to deny the pejorative aspects of the definition of the word, but rather to illustrate that at an a priori point, Lilith may be quite benign, embodying the intangible aspects of Humankind. At her heart, it is possible that Lilith is much more than scholars and religious thinkers tend to believe.
The next available literary work skips ahead millennia. Although I had hoped there might be further record of Lilith in between, none could be found. The next time she is mentioned is in a text known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly one hundred years ago along the Dead Sea, near the river Jordan. Carbon dating processes have dated these scrolls to between 3 BCE and 68 CE. Although the passage to follow is in all probability based on Isaiah 34:14, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not considered a biblical text per se. The fragment from the scrolls that should concern us is as follows: "And I, the Sage,/declare the grandeur of his radiance/in order to frighten and terrify/all the spirits of the ravaging angels/and the bastard spirits,/demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals]/and those who strike unexpectedly/to lead astray the spirit of knowledge" (see Humm, 1).
The two points of interest here are that Lilith is disassociated from other 'demons' and held in her own right, and that the plural is used to refer to Lilith (see Humm, 1). The two things that interest me about this for the sake of my paper is that we see an evolution of Lilith as an entity unto herself, and the fact that the wording implies the new category contains more than one Lilith. One has the distinct impression that a 'Lilith' is some form of special demon, or different sort of evil. It would be fair to assume that this opens the possibility for Lilith to become more human. Perhaps a Lilith could then be seen as an entity more akin to humanity, rather than just a general sort of demon. It would not be a leap from this point to create a myth based on a single entity known as Lilith. If biblical writers were to encounter such a being, it seems reasonable to me that the writers of any given midrash, (Jewish creative retelling), may draw upon sources at hand. "These tales did not emerge from a vacuum in the Middle Ages, where they flourished, but are an outgrowth in every respect, of the biblical, Rabbinic and folk traditions that preceded them" (Schwartz, 341). It is reasonable that writers of any given era would draw upon all the forces that were then at work around them. This may explain how Lilith first appeared in more contemporary works.
PART TWO
"…and the LORD said…"
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:21-22). In these two verses from the book of Genesis, we see more than a problem in consistency, we see the birthplace of the legend of Lilith as it stands today in Judeo-Christian terms. The Torah, as is widely known, is literally the word of God. By this merit, it cannot be altered in any way, or refuted by any means. These writings are sacred; they are fact. As such, students of the Torah were left with only one conclusion: there were two women in the Garden of Eden -- one which was created alongside of man, and another who was created from man. The story goes on to relay the tale of Adam and Eve, his wife, with no further direct mention to the first of the two. What became of the first woman?
This first woman is believed by Jewish scholars to have been Lilith, and the following is her story as widely believed in the Jewish tradition. Lilith is said to be the First wife of Adam, created from the dust just as Adam was, created simultaneously and equal to Adam in all respects. As the mythology is told, Adam wished that Lilith should be subservient to him, particularly in the realm of sex. It is said that Adam wished to have sex with Lilith in a missionary position, thereby placing her on the bottom, and she refused him this. In fact, she "[refused] to let him dominate her in any way. Instead, she insisted that they were equal" (Schwartz, 343). It is said that having become frustrated and exasperated with Adam, Lilith spoke the Ineffable Name of the Lord and with this power, flew out of the Garden of Eden and away from Adam.
Lilith then flew to the Red Sea, where she found a cave in which to live and took demons for mates, giving birth to thousands of demon offspring who populate the world and cause all manner of hardship to men. Meanwhile, Adam, missing his companion, beseeches God to bring her back to him. God takes pity on Adam and sends three angels in search of Lilith, the object being to return her to Adam. These three angels, (Senoy, Sensenoy, and Semengelof) find her by the Red Sea and command her to return. Lilith stands her ground and refuses.
In punishment for her refusal, the angels proclaim they will kill one hundred of her demon children each day until she returns to Adam. Lilith exclaims that even this fate is better than living in submission to Adam. Furthermore, she vows to kill the children of Adam, stating that she would take the boy's lives until they were eight days old, and the girls until they were twenty days old. She is even said to have proclaimed that she would attack the mothers in childbirth, and attack men while they slept in order to rob them of their semen, which she would use to create more demon spawn to make up for the one hundred lost to her each day.
Lilith, having still maintained a sense of pity, promised that any child who bore an amulet or had within their room a carving containing the names of the three angels who had punished her would be left in peace. As the mythology goes, this is the arrangement to this day.
There are a number of variations to the story, some additions in other works, but these are the high points that all stories I have encountered agree upon. What may we, as scholars, draw from such a story? What effects does it have upon the culture that accepts the myth? Schwartz offers an idea: "Times of stress, like marriage, birth and death, inevitably become the focus of rituals, superstitions and folklore . . . it is the supernatural, after all, that provides an explanation for all kinds of events, especially misfortunes" (339). Lilith becomes a scapegoat for misfortune. "As queen of the Demons, she kills babies in their cribs, (apparently, this was the folk explanation for SIDS)" (Smith, 1). It is more than simply this, however.
Much more interesting is the way the myth is used to shape a culture. "Lilith is . . . the projection of the negative fears and desires of the Rabbis who created her" (Schwartz, 345). Not only do Lilith's proclamations explain a child's possible death after birth and a mother's possible death during, they force a moral code: "it is forbidden for a man to sleep alone in a house, lest Lilith get hold of him" (Weigle, 254). This seems to me to be a way to ensure that men will have no ejaculation save for intercourse, and if they should, they are then to blame for God himself knows how many demon spawn. "Lilith becomes the repository and incubationary of the male sexual drive that can not be satisfied by normal means" (Smith, 1). Men live in fear of Lilith, but the ramifications for women are far greater. For them, Lilith spelled out the precise way they should not be according to God's will.
Lilith, as we have seen, refused to be subordinate in any way to Adam. The Rabbis who studied the story thus saw her as exactly the example of what not to do; she was "the negative side . . . of woman. Lilith is assertive, seductive, and ultimately destructive; Eve, [by way of comparison], is passive, faithful, and supportive" (Schwartz, 343). For the early followers of Judaism, Lilith became the vehicle for maintaining women in a state of submission. Any means of assertion or independence by any woman was seen as qualities of Lilith, and by extension, evil qualities. If women were to remain in the good graces of God, they had to be submissive, they had to accept Eve as a role model for themselves. It may serve us to remember, however, that Eve is traditionally held responsible for the fall from grace, and so women of the time had a no win scenario.
To make matters even worse, another interesting development occurred when Lilith was demonized. As much as Lilith was used to explain away misfortune, she also became an excuse for men in the realm of infidelity. According to the myth, Lilith spawns many hundreds of demons each day, which then roam the earth causing hardship. Among the hardships these demons create is the seduction of otherwise pious men, thereby leading them down an ungodly path. A story from around the 8th or 9th century tells a tale of just such an occurrence. The man in question subsequently encounters the Prophet Elijah, who utterly absolves him of any guilt associated with the act, stating "You are free from sin, for this was a demon" (see Schwartz, 345). Although the demon in question was not said to be Lilith herself, she is associated with her, in the same manner that all acts which correlate to Lilith's are deemed evil. In such a hierarchy, it is reasonable to assume that the people of the time would associate common women as demons in such cases. The end result is that men are absolved from any evil, and women become the embodiment of all evil. One can see how such a vicious circle could lead to historical occurrences like the burning of 'witches' in Salem.
The truly ironic quality about this whole biblical slant of the story of Lilith is that it has almost no basis in biblical study. Lilith is mentioned by name but once in some versions of the Bible, (Isaiah, 34:14), in which a vague and fleeting reference is made to her as the "night hag" in a somewhat apocalyptic verse. Lilith owes her link to Judaism almost entirely to a Midrash found in a text known as the Alphabet of Ben Sira. This document has been dated between the 8th and 10th centuries and is the first known place the myth of Lilith appears as understood in Biblical terms. It is not, however, a Jewish text, nor is the myth found in any Rabbinic tradition. The entire writing of the Alphabet of Ben Sira is questionable. "Some see it as an impious digest of risqué folk-tales. Others have suggested that it was a polemical broadside aimed at Christians, Karaites, or some other opposing movement. I personally would not rule out the possibility that it was actually an anti-Jewish satire" (Segal, 1). Whatever the Alphabet of Ben Sira was at its conception, it was somewhere accepted by Jews as myth. People came to believe this story was as rooted in fact as the Bible, likely spurred by the passages that opened this section of my paper. It is altogether possible that Lilith had nothing whatsoever to do with Adam, and that the common perception of those who feel they know the myth of Lilith may well be inaccurate. Whether Lilith came in the front door as myth or through the back door as mere interpretation that somehow managed to gain a foothold in Jewish mythos, her staying power has been strong enough to last to the present day.
PART THREE
"…revelation…"
What then, does this mean in our contemporary studies relating to feminism and religion? From a Jewish standpoint, it is reasonable that Lilith would be considered a champion for women's religious lives and values. Patriarchy, as we have seen, has demonized all aspects of the popular Lilith myth with the end result being that women are considered evil when they show the qualities of the mythical Lilith. As Lilith's replacement as the wife of Adam, Eve represents a less than empowered character. Traditional religious ideas have little in the way of powerful female figures. As Tara Warren illustrated in her lecture on October 8, the Virgin Mary herself is not only forever nothing more than a mother and nurturer, she is also an unattainable level of perfection.
The traditional myth of Lilith, however, would be an ideal example of what Muszynski speaks of when she calls patriarchy an historical phenomenon (Muszynski, 64). It is unreasonable to assume Lilith's evil nature based on nothing more than what prior religious thinkers, almost exclusively men, have made of her. Religious feminists would look at the myth of Lilith and see the character of Lilith as one who defies the ideas and standards set by the 'fathers' of Jewish and Christian traditions. She demanded equality above anything else, and she refused to allow even God himself to lure her back to Adam, and consequently into a life of servitude. In this framework Lilith becomes almost a challenge to traditional myth. She is a feminist way of saying that the ideas put forth by a patriarchal culture are unacceptable. To embrace what goes against the culture is ultimately a way of stating that the culture in question is not acceptable to those who would embrace the alternative.
An excellent example of this is the recent Lilith Fair concerts that have happened annually for the past two years. Sarah McLachlan, in an interview dealing with Lilith Fair, told the reporter that she got the idea from the traditional Jewish myth of Lilith being Adam's first wife, and her refusal to be dominated. "I loved the egalitarian element of that, I loved the reactionary element of it, it was a bit cheeky, and I thought it was very perfect for Lilith . . . she's such a strong and wonderful feminist figure, yet we've never been taught that. So I feel really proud to have helped to put her back on her rightful goddess position" (McLachlan, 1). An interesting statement, as now we see a new generation embracing Lilith as a goddess.
But are we correct? Consider the evolution of Lilith as portrayed in the pictures seen here. Directly to the left we have an image of Lilith from antiquity. She possesses many qualities, beauty as well as a darker element noted in the clawed feet and wings. The image seen below to the right is somewhat different. This is the logo used to promote Lilith Fair. In it we see a distinctly more human idea of Lilith, with all aspects of any evil qualities removed. She is represented as nothing more than a beautiful woman, the rays behind her perhaps signifying some hidden divinity.
I believe that of all of the readings I have done for this course, the one that haunts me most is the work we read by E. Spelman. Her ideas that it is unreasonable to assume the existence of a universal woman seem among the most valid I have encountered (see Spelman, 137). Looking at all of the facts outlined in this work, we have been able to rightfully call Lilith a spirit, a demon, a wife, a champion and a goddess to name a few. We have seen that she can be belligerent, independent, evil, thieving, murderous and feminist. Can we rightfully select whatever aspects of Lilith suit our needs at the time and call this being Lilith? Was Sarah McLachlan any more correct when she called Lilith a goddess than the 'fathers' were when they called her a demon? I believe that Spelman would disagree.
Rather, I believe it would be more useful and indeed more valid to think of Lilith in a different way. Leitch makes an astute observation that is worth consideration:
Adam was created to perfection, [in the image of God,] who is not seen as being male or female, but as both at once . . . thus, if God is male and female, the mother and the father, then Adam . . . must also have originally been male and female in one. To be otherwise would have been to be unbalanced, and thus imperfect" (Leitch, 1).
When we consider the first part of the paper, and we see that etymologically speaking the name 'Lilith' may well spring from the word 'spirit', it is intriguing to find that the name 'Adam' comes from the Hebrew 'adamah,' meaning 'earth'. As the earth, Adam could be said to represent the tangible, the elemental, the raw components that make humankind able to live. As spirit, Lilith may well represent the intangible, the transcendent, the divine components that make humankind strive for an understanding greater than itself. When both are brought together, we have the complete picture of a human being. The genders come to represent components that should strive for equality in consideration rather than independence from one another.
This idea is not without historical literary precedent. If one considers the writings of Plato in The Symposium, Aristophanes makes largely the same point:
. . . originally it was different from what it is now. In the first place there were three sexes, not, as with us, two, male and female; the third partook of the nature of both the others and has vanished . . . (Plato, 59)
Curiously, Aristophanes goes on to nearly echo many of the ideas put forth by Leitch. Aristophanes says that Zeus, concerned with the power of this third sex, comes up with an idea to remedy the problem of their power: "I will cut each of them in two; in this way they will be weaker . . . they shall walk upright on two legs" (Plato, 60). Finally, Aristophanes explains the yearning of humanity for union among the sexes:
Man's original body having been thus cut in two, each half yearned for the half from which it had been severed. When they met they threw their arms around one another and embraced, in their longing to grow together again . . . when one member of a pair died and the other was left, the latter sought after and embraced another partner, which might be the half either of a female whole (what is now called woman) or a male" (Plato, 61).
The feminist movement, at the very least from a Liberal feminist standpoint, strikes me as largely a necessary attempt to attain equality among the sexes. The ideal would be a communion between both sexes in which there is no division, all humanity benefiting from the combined power that arises out of two distinct yet equal forces. For the sake of this paper, one could argue that Lilith, if taken as the shadow side of humanity or as the defiant or headstrong is a perfect compliment to Adam, who is considered penitent or grounded. Combined we achieve not only equality on levels of power but completion as human beings.
And this is what I take with me from the writing of this paper. Who is Lilith? Throughout our history she has been many things to many groups of people as we have seen, but as Spelman has pointed out, can any group of her qualities be considered without also considering all of the others? The answer to that question is that Lilith can be nearly anyone. What is Lilith? That is another matter. Seen from the above perspectives, she can represent anything from the spirit of humankind we all identify with on some level to the dark side many of us may never see. In either case, she is a part of a much greater reality, that of human consciousness, in which she runs freely. We can make use of her in whatever way seems to suit, but we would be mistaken if we were to believe for a moment that we could compartmentalize her. Lilith is a valuable component that feminists can quote from and rally to, but only inasmuch as the realization that she is more than her sex is kept intact. It may be wholly unfair, as suggested at the outset of the paper, to invent any goddess that suits. An unalterable definition of Lilith in this case seems not only unfair but also impossible. ?
Works Cited
DALLEY, STEPHANIE, Myths From Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press,
New York, ©1989
HUMM, ALAN, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,
http://ccat.sus.upenn.edu:80/~humm/Topics/Lilith/, December
6, 1998.
LEITCH, AARON, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/Khephframes.html,
December 6, 1998.
MCLACHLAN, SARAH, From an interview presented in Lilith Fair, Produced
By High Five Entertainment, Inc. ©1997.
MUSZYNSKI, A., Race, Class, Gender. ©1991 by Jesse Vorst/Society for
Socialist Studies.
PLATO, The Symposium. Penguin Books Ltd. New York, (C)1951.
SCHWARTZ, H., "Jewish Tales of the Supernatural" from Judaism Vol. 36,
Summer 1987.
SEGAL, ELIEZER, "Looking for Lilith" from The World Wide Web,
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html,
December 6, 1998.
SMITH, JEFFREY, "Lilit, Malkah ha-Shadim" from The World Wide Web,
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/lilit.html, December 6,
1998.
SPELMAN, E., "Woman: The One & The Many" from Inessential Woman.
©1988 by Beacon Press.
WARREN, TARA, Lecture Material from October 08, 1998.
WEIGLE, MARTA, Spiders & Spinsters. University of New Mexico Press,
New Mexico, ©1982.
WTF.. ... ... all this outta the genesis. Cool.
Very interesting. I would rather say that Lilith is the type of woman I would like in a relationship. Assertive, so she has the brains to think for herself. Aggressive, so she constantly send warning signals when I act like a jerk so that the relationship can get patched up more quickly. Independent, so that she can create ideas of her own and discuss with me. A woman like Eve would not be so great to me.
Zero:
Lillith isn't actually in Genesis - not in the Bible. I think she's mentioned in the Babylonain Torah, and other misc. Jewish myths.
Sorry, had to be anal-retentive.
Indeed? And what is anal-retentive?
Anal-Retentive (anal stage of development): The anal stage of motivational development is characterized by the child's central area of bodily concern in the rectum. Bowel movements become a source of pleasure to the child. The child may defecate to receive pleasure. However, gaining pleasure from defecating brings the child into conflict with the parents regarding toilet training. Freud claimed that delays during this stage (or this stage occuring prematurely) can cause fixation. Fixation during the anal stage can result in anal retention in which a person exhibits compulsive cleanliness, ordderliness, or fussiness.
Others say you're 'anal retentive' because you're "full of sh*t" or being a 'tight-ass'.
harrykarry
07-22-02, 10:12 AM
actually, i think over 300 posts to this site is closer to pathetic but i love you anyways man!
and since you come from atheism, i'll pray for you.... maybe you could pray for me too as i probably need it more than you do :rolleyes:
i don't necesarrily think you need to mean the words. "god help harrykarry." i think the words themselves might have some power as words of life....
back to the discussion at hand (so i don't get in trouble....)
it comes down to mans' need to sort and separate everything into catagories... it's sad really. why can't it all be taught and it all be lumped together and it all be included then let the lost children of the earth decide for themselves.... scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion... it smacks of shit... again.
harry,
...scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion.
Scientists have no more reason to include the bible in science process than they have to include the National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com) or the World Weekly News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/). ;)
Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?
huh? clearly they are directly connected......more...Friday
lotuseatsvipers
08-01-02, 05:17 PM
zero:
Am I god? Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry. Such attacks will do nothing but earn you a cold, amused but somewhat sympathetic silence from the sciforum gurus. WNDWAA. (surely you know what THAT means?)
Pathetic. You only have 20+ posts and you're calling someone else a newbie.
Zero, what the hell is up with your shit talk. YOU ARE BETTER CAUSE YOUVE BEEN HERE LONGER! ROCKING, now shutup please.
And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).
I agree it (evolutions) has its flaw, but to say the earth is 6000 years old is a bit rediculous.
And to teach that in the schools is ever more rediculous.
I have seen Dr. Kent hovind (creationist speak), and the worst part about it is he makes all these claims that apparently counteract the age of the earth (the moon is getting closer to the earth this much ever year, if we go back 10000 years it would be in the middle of the earth...). All of his statements are easily invalidated if one only speaks to the correct authority. He is the source of all this creationist babble and the idea that it can somehow be TAUGHT in a classroom. :D ha ha
harrykarry
08-01-02, 06:21 PM
And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).
evolutionist theory is based on data right? (wether theorized or proven) the worship of data (with or without physical proof) is a religion. endorsing a belief that the physical; the rocks, the stars, the trees, even man are above god... somehow smarter.... somehow omnipotent in and of themselves, self-created and then mutated over time until intelligence as we know it (jerry springer) slowly emerges.
yes. evolution is a religion. the fact that evolutionists hide behind data and worship it as their god...is a religion... it's even very narrow minded as religions often are...
i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.
the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....
kindof like any liberal program that wants to emphasize how rediculous christianity is.... show an evangelist with a bad hairdoo...
lotuseatsvipers
08-01-02, 06:51 PM
i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.
Well then you have no connection at all with the creationist community. They do indeed say the earth is 6k to 10k years old through biblical dating (using the generations of people listed in the bible).
the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....
Kent hovind...yes he is a wacko perhaps. But he is a leading voice in creationism and the attack on evolution. I wouldn't attack him blindly if I were you because he actually does his research, he comes off sounding a lot more intelligent then you. You have yet to present ANY facts as to why evolution might be false. You are a much bigger wacko in my book.
As for worshipping and hiding behind data, that is just insane propaganda that you heard at your latest church meeting! Who is 'hiding' behind data? Do you even have slightest idea of what science is about? Seriously?
There are plenty of religious scientists in the world, and I have no doubts the huge majority of scientists have entertained the idea of creationism. But how can a scientists take anything like that at face value without any facts at all? The bible is not the be all and end all of answers, and it would be very destructive to society if we treated it as such (remember the dark ages....ya well we would still be there if the world listened to wackos like you).
At least kent hovind understands what science IS, go read a 4th grade intro book on science or something and then come back to argue.
Use fewer ellipses please, its like reading a long pause.
harrykarry
08-02-02, 11:30 AM
I hear ya barking big dog.
shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.
should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)
clearly the six days it took god to create the world and my women's intuition were not days as we know them. i look forward to the paradymn shift when we have the answers (in heaven or hell).
Use fewer insults please, its like being disappointed by a little dick.
lotuseatsvipers
08-02-02, 11:48 AM
should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)
Sorry you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The hairs stand up on my back when I talk to idiots, what can I say.
I am so baffled by your insistance that evolution is a religion as to be left speachless. What is your definition of religion?
Why do you waste your time with the Bible if all you do is twist the meanings and words around so much that it comes out to have real meaning only in your mind. I respect eki a lot more than you, at least he understands the importance of th book you base your faith, your life, and all your assumptions on science on, has to be TRUTH at all times, or else you are just spinning your wheels.
(Either take the thing figuratively or take it literally. But if you take it figuratively don't try to apply meaning to every word and phrase, it makes you sound like a desperate moron).
shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.
If you believe that education teaches a person to treat things with logic and common sense then yes I agree with you. I however, believe education is mearly a means to get access to good material, no one can teach you to think. That is your problem, thinking.
As far as evolution being a religion I really don't know what you want me to explain to you. That it is a theory based on observations of the world and scientific data collected for almost 200 years now? That it is continually growing, changing and expanding to fit in line with REAL data (something RELIGION can never do, unless of course your name is harrykarry and you change your religion and your creed to fit the day of the week. "no i swear a day means 50 million years").
Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.
harrykarry
08-02-02, 02:33 PM
I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".
get outta here. you believe only what you can see.
jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.
lotuseatsvipers
08-02-02, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by harrykarry
I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".
get outta here. you believe only what you can see.
jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.
So thats your response? You quote my sig that has nothing to do with the discussion and then try and slam my intelligence and 'open mindedness' with absolutely no substance to back it up. This was after slyly sending me to 'hell' in your previous post. This is so good. Now I know what the thread starters were talking about when they said discussing creationsm is so much fun.
lol!
Lets try one last time to get something of substance out of you, I'm finding this very entertaining.
Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.
So now it comes out. You see what was meant in the begininng of the thread that when theists get started it is a quick trip from there into faith.
The thing you do not hear is why creationism and here is fact to support it. What you will hear is attack at evolution because there is precious little that can be offered for creationism. There are two ways to formulate an arguement or debate. One is to present facts to support the issue. Very little of this will be done simply because there is precious little that can be offered to substantiate it. The other is to attack the validity of the concept. Which is where defenders of creationism are forced to go being as they can not pull out facts short of the bible that support it. Science can go to multiple places to support the facts. The only reason that creationism is taught in school is that you have successful policital lobbying which is a far cry from proof...
lotuseatsvipers
08-02-02, 07:11 PM
Now everyone knows my penis is small, what am i to do:(
harrykarry,
Evolution is a religion
From Is evolution just another religion? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html):
"....as a metaphysic, evolutionary theory is fairly poverty-stricken. This is what should be true of a scientific theory; for the number of conclusions beyond the empirical evidence that can be conjectured is unlimited. Any theory that committed itself to a metaphysical conclusion as a logical inference would be almost certainly false."
Human genome reveals human evolution (2001)
With the first draft of the sequence of the human genome complete, scientists see more than ever before how intimately related the human species is to other life on Earth. Humans not only share more than 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, they even have genes in common with fruit flies and yeast. The field of genomics gives scientists new tools for understanding how humans, along with all living organisms, have evolved over billions of years.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/index.html)
I'm still trying to figure out how you anti-creationists define creationism. Are you guys just against the hypothesis that the earth and universe are only 6.000-10,000 years old or are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism? I posted the following on August 1 to get the ball rolling and no one responded:
Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?
Warren,
I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.
I am personally reluctant to wedge myself into either corner for the purpose of this discussion, I have my own ideas on the topic and much chatter on this subject contains more mental masturbation than actual substance.
fadingCaptain
08-05-02, 03:15 PM
Warren,
Can what he is doing be called science?
If he is using the scientific method, it is science. He would have a hypothesis. If I were to believe that the moon is made of cheese it would be my moon is cheese hypothesis. I could begin a vigorous study using the scientic method. However, until I had evidence and facts to back up my claim it would remain a wacky hypothesis and never be taught in schools :).
Teerum>>I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.<<
Teerum,
Thank you for your honest reply. I think it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is more than just a disagreement over the age of the earth and the age of the universe. It goes even deeper than a difference of opinion over common ancestry. What we have here is a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis. This hypothesis rejects the idea that any intelligent direction has occurred in the evolutionary process. If this were common knowledge there would be much more opposition to the teaching of evolution in the public schools than there is.
About half of those that consider themselves Christians believe that God directed the evolutionary process in some way. But the evolutionary process that the anti-creationists are promoting is a non-intelligently directed at any level process. They should be up front about this when presenting their case before school boards. The Christian belief that God had something to do with origin of humans is not compatible with Darwinism.
A Darwinist doesn't investigate to answer the question "did X evolve" but only looks to answer the question "how did X evolve" and "how are X, Y and Z related by evolution." A scientist that investigates to answer the question "did X evolve" is not doing science according to the Darwinists, thus there can be no scientific evidence against Darwinism.
Warren,
I believe that in order for the scientific community to successfully support this non-intelligence theory they have to make to many concessions and on the other hand, it may also be said that the creationist has a very convenient way out also. Neither side can actually provide enough information to prove the other wrong. However, I believe that in order to make an intelligent assessment we actually need to take a few steps back.
Yes, we can say that evidence of fossilized microbes found on Mars is potential evidence that we as Human beings are also aliens that flew through space and landed on earth. I myself feel this is a great possibility. Clearly this is a great departure from Adam and Eve. However, even if the scientist reaches back to microbes flying through space, the mere process of the origin of life beginning like that is so incredible that the most astute scientist would not be able to explain HOW the process came to be. No matter how it is explained, it is a catch 22.
I can go on and on, but I would like to say that I am very happy about the differences of these opinions, because without the scientist I am not sure the creationist would ever have the ability or desire to strive to really know the truth.....the answer lies within the convergence of both positions........
lotuseatsvipers
08-05-02, 04:49 PM
About half of those that consider themselves Christians believe that God directed the evolutionary process in some way. But the evolutionary process that the anti-creationists are promoting is a non-intelligently directed at any level process. They should be up front about this when presenting their case before school boards. The Christian belief that God had something to do with origin of humans is not compatible with Darwinism.
Your whole point is really missed on me.
Yes there are diffent kinds of creationists, so what. What does that have to do with a someone wanting a line in highschool biology books saying one theory is that 'god created everything' (by the way that was in my 9th grade bio book, my teacher was a evangelists son and didnt even teach us evolution).
In my view evolution is NOT trying to deal with how things got here, but rather how stuff evolved into more complex beings. Yes they have their 'theories' about minerals and lightning and primordial soup, but that is just random guesses that are not science, but theories of that nature are right alongside theories of creation in the bio books ive seen.
My big beef with creation is what the hell do they want to teach about it exactly? God created the world, the end.
And I still say that trying to fit evolution into the bible is complete shit. Give me a break, it doesn't even hint to it, it just says 6 days. Seriously, how do you turn 6 days into millions and millions of years of evolution. silly.
So if you say something of a creationist scientist who completely believes in evolution, but thinks the original form of life came from God, I say so the hell what. That is no different than a scientist thinking it came from some soup or rock or lightning bolt. Neither have proof, get my point.
sorry I ramble too damn much sometimes.
harrykarry
08-05-02, 05:30 PM
people with small dicks have a tendency to ramble :D
sorry, cheep shot... but at least you're not a blithering morron like me...
the answer lies within the convergence of both positions........
the open hostility of evolutionists who throw darwin on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeeeeee, creationists are idiots" and the creationists who throw the bible on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeee, you're all going to hell" make this whole black and white, wrong and right, only one can exist in a science class, narrow-mindedness, insanely sad.
oops, i was rambling too.... thank god i don't have a dick.
and i wasn't implying that you were going to hell... i put myself in that catagory before anyone but you do set me off. let's never get married.
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. — 2 Peter 3:8
(and please don't start doing the math you literal science fools.)
...do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. — 2 Peter 3:8
And do not let this one fact escape your notice: that with the Scientist one creation tale is like a thousand creation tales, and a thousand creation tales like one creation tale. - Gen. Science 101
Most critics of Neo Darwinism do not question “evolution”. They question that random mutation and natural selection is capable of creating complex biological structures and systems. In the past evolution was attributed to ‘DNA copying errors’ (random by common usage of the word) shaped into complex biological structures by ‘natural selection’. More recently Darwinists have claimed that ‘random’ has a different meaning in biology. In biology random supposedly only means ‘random with regard to fitness’. I congratulate Neo Darwinists upon finally realizing the implausibility of biological complexity being created by a truly random process such as ‘copying errors’ and ‘natural selection’. However, so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created. No one has explained what is non-random about the process. If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection – then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?
Creative intelligence consists of the ability to make fallible choices. A computer, or any other mechanistic process, can only make the choices it is programmed to make. A computer won’t make mistakes, so long as the system is not corrupted, but neither is it capable of creativity. It can't make free falllible choices.
I can think of three possible explanations of evolution:
1. The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes.
2. A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process – a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.
3. Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’.
Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others? If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life.
Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.
And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. It is mainly built around proselytizing and negating evolution. And creationism spouts random absolute truths and shoves them down your throat, "believe it or else". On the other hand, scientific theories are always open to disproof. The close mindedness lies in creationism.
And harrykarry, the necessity for allowing new ideas in science does NOt apply to creationism. C is unscientific, that's why it does not belong.
I might add that, according to philosopher Karl Popper, the defining characteristic of science is falsifiability.
Zero>>Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.
And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. <<
Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science. You are obviously confusing intelligent design with a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. They are not the same.
And you seem to equate science with materialism. One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism. And ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism.
The materialist belief that a blind watchmaker turned microbes into magpies, maple trees and musicians doesn't require any evidence because a blind watchmaker is a logical deduction from materialism. If a critic finds the current blind watchmaker inadequate to explain everything that's occurred in natural history, his only permissible move within science is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker is not a logical possibility. Thus, most scientists don't investigate to determine IF life evolved, they only search for ways life DID evolve. Now, why should it be surprising to materialists that non-materialists remain skeptical of the current blind watchmaker hypothesis and feel that evidence for a seeing watchmaker may not be getting a fair hearing?
Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Blind Watchmaker, doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to an atheist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes. And what is wrong with following up on this suspicion with an investigation employing the scientific method?
harrykarry
08-06-02, 01:49 PM
Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.
zero, the "empty slot" was created while you were still in diapers and god was removed from schools. yes, we used to be able to sing christmas carrols such as silent night and away in the manger at school. that was way back when we bowed our heads and silently prayed right after the pledge of allegiance....
the "empty slot" was quickly filled by materialists who have much invested in claiming to NOT be a religion. (or they too would be booted out the door, [by themselves]).
but i'll again contradict myself by saying that unlike grocery stores.... i don't believe the mind has just so much shelf space. in fact, data isn't even hardly taught anymore. more important is the skill of collecting data and to include creationism and evolution as subjects to be researched with information on how to do so is not a threat to any "slot."
it's too bad that the whole "slot" mentality was encouraged by fundamentalists..... then adopted by evolutionists and other bad people (just kidding, really)...
the best thing we could do for our kids is include them all and teach them how to come to their own conclusions. obviously, it would be WAYYYYYYYYY more interesting for them.
I have been out of this thread for a while. I hope, I did not miss anything. My understanding is that "Creationist" view is basically Christian view. That leaves more than half of the world population for a competing religious view too.
Another monkey wrench....
Xevious
08-07-02, 02:03 PM
Darwinism is the genisis story of seccular humanism and many other non-theist points of view. That in itself is the real issue. Evolution on it's own, as a biological theory about our origins and the way life has come about on this planet has reached far beyond it's original meaning as a biological theory.
Who we are as people - what ethics we decide upon, and what values we teach to our children have much to do with the philosophy and beliefs we instill about what is the nature of human beings. Evolution clearly states that we are a byproduct of millions of years of random chance and accidents. Their is in all reality, NOTHING special about human beings. We are nothing more than upwright walking primates with the ability to think.
If one is to accept their is a divine creator, then one is brought into the idea that MAYBE their is a purpose to the world as a whole. You look upon your fellow man as differnt from the animals we evolved from and something else entirely. You wonder WHY do I exist?
The issue with Darwinism / Creationism is a clash of values, morals, and beliefs which has little to do with science in itself and more to do with the instilling of ethics. Many Christians feel (correctly) that the teaching of Evolution in the classroom leaves their children more susceptable to accepting non-theist beliefs. However, to say that the teaching of non-theist ideas philosophies in school without teaching theist philosophies as well is fair because one is science and the other is not is not a valaid argument.
In Colleges, their are whole schollarly courses on Islam, Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and many other world religions. Teaching religion in High School in the same mannor would not be unbenificiary.
lotuseatsvipers
08-07-02, 02:15 PM
In Colleges, their are whole schollarly courses on Islam, Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and many other world religions. Teaching religion in High School in the same mannor would not be unbenificiary.
Do away with the Math and Science CRAP, ITS RELIGIOUS STUDIES TIME:D
Actually I took a new testament course my 9th grade year at a public high school, just a little peep into how a grew up and why I am so messed up.
Xevious
08-07-02, 06:43 PM
If I may pose the question: what does teaching Evolution in the classroom have to offer young minds? It's nice to know, but it's not applicable for everyday like Math will be. By contrast, courses in religious beliefs would offer people a tool to understanding other cultures beliefs, and thus an invalueble tool in world politics and world history. The whole situation in the Middle-East for example, becomes much easier to grasp if you understand the religious teachings of both the Jews and Islamics.
You've failed to make a case that teaching religious beliefs has less value than Evolution.
lotuseatsvipers
08-07-02, 07:02 PM
You've failed to make a case that teaching religious beliefs has less value than Evolution
sensative are we? If you'll notice I didn't exactly construct an argument, I was being lighthearted...
But yes I completely believe that teaching science is a much more constructive use of time than teaching religion. I could honostly care less if you disagree with that. You want to change my mind, you construct an argument saying they are both equally necessary and perhaps I'll respond.
Xevious
08-08-02, 12:57 AM
I gave you a good reason. Even if you don't agree with what religious people believe, knowing what they believe would give you a tremendous asset in understanding where they are comming from. I do not believe in non-theism, but I learn about it so I can understand why they think the way they do. For those same reasons, religion ought to be in classrooms. The knowledge is an incredible tool in understanding world politics, or the guy just down the street.
To an extent, we already do this in schools. When we learn about the Egyptian Pyramids in Gaza, we learn some smatterings about the religion the Egyptians practiced to help students understand WHY the Pyramids were built. We teach whole units about Greek Mythology and about Christianity to some extent when we talk about the Roman Empire.
If we were to teach courses in Islam (and some schools have begun to already!) then the actions and motivations of Osama Bin Laden become clearer to us. If we were to talk about Christianity in the same open-minded by distanced manor, then the "religous right" would be more understandable. If we were to teach our students about Judism, we would understand why Israel acts the way it does.
When we teach Evolution in classrooms, do we teach it in the mannor of "YOU MUST BELIEVE."? The truth is that we don't. We teach it in the mannor "This is what the scientific community's concensus is." That is the nature of science. Fossil Bird Expert Larry Martin said it best. "It's probably a bad thing in science when everyone can agree on something. If you look historically, some of the most horrible mistakes generally had wide agreement." Remember also that in science, the word "Fact" is defined as a general concensus, not absolute truth.
Religion should be taught the same way in classrooms - as a scholarly study of the beliefs of other people. Jeff Horner, a noted Paleontoligest said it best. "If you ask someone what they think happened, that's not nessassarily what happened. That's what they think happened." In other words, you do not HAVE to teach Religion in the classroom as "gospel truth".
Antimode
08-08-02, 01:11 AM
I do believe there never was an argument about the usefullness of teaching religion. Teaching about all major religions is most probably very good indeed, since they are an important part of our world, and fundamental for so many individuals.
The debate is about teaching creationism as a science. And if I'm allowed to give my opinion, that would be quite negative. This since creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus would be all together in the wrong place. It should be in religion class together with Hindu and Buddhist world creation ideas as well.
Warren, I recommend you read through the article which had its address quouted at the top of this thread. Science does in fact not stand baffled at all by the randomness problem in evolution, but have detailed those processes much closer during the last years.
As a final argument, I would like to make the following example: I could right now come up with my very own religion. It would say that everything, the world, the universe and so on, was all created yesterday by an impossible to detect allmighty force. It was created so that it in every way will indicate to have existed for a lot longer, and people were created with falsified memories of times past. Nothing existed before this.
Seems perfect, right? Impossible to disprove, and it even happens to explain everything I would ever find strange about the world.
But it still just doesn't seem to quite cut it, does it? It just doesn't seem likely. And no matter how much strange things I find about my other theories, it never ever makes my first theory any more likely.
That is fundamental in science. If there is no way to show something and no things or occurences which would disprove it, there is no reason to try to present is as a scientific theory, as science cannot do anything with it. It just doesn't belong.
Xevious
08-08-02, 03:41 AM
I'll give you that one - their is no way to disprove that God exists with science. By the same token, the mainstream scientific community should not act like they have, and they do when they aren't being politically correct.
By the same token, I can suggest the Evolution is also not disproveable. Since as I have said before no one has directly watched animals trasmuate over generations, no one has witnessed it in action. Oh sure you can say that the Fossil Record can count for that, but that's only how you interprit what your seeing in the fossil record. I could say a divine creator causes each transmutation, but I can't watch him do it. By the same token, I can say that we cannot watch macroevolution happen. Scientists act on faith at this point. Remember, Darwin formed his theory AFTER he saw a hundred differnt things in Nature which confirmed what he already believed.
The idea of Evolution is an old one - it's been around since the Sumarians introduced it in their religious doctrines. That's right - Evolution was originally a RELIGIOUS doctrine. We have had a few thousand years to change it in the light of observations. After all that time, do you really think the theory is left disproveable? Of course not - it's been changed each time a new observation comes up. Thus, the theory never dies, but changes when it's disproven. Since the theory can never be disproven, I submit that Evolution is in itself pseudoscience!
James R
08-08-02, 03:59 AM
<i>The idea of Evolution is an old one - it's been around since the Sumarians introduced it in their religious doctrines. That's right - Evolution was originally a RELIGIOUS doctrine.</i>
This is a new one for me. Can you provide any evidence for this? Some quotes of Sumarian writings about evolution would be good.
Also, evolution is falsifiable. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that all life on Earth should be based on similar DNA and have certain parts of the DNA in common. To disprove evolution on this basis, all you need to do is show me <b>one</b> animal, plant or whatever which doesn't have DNA, or which does not share any DNA with other lifeforms. Can you do that?
It is somewhat strange for a Creationist to claim that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, since they devote much of their time and effort to attempting to falsify it.
pseu·do·sci·ence (sd-sns)
n.
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation
Hello Xevious.
:eek:
Prepare to get flamed, eh?
Not that I will be the one to do it. I just want to say that "theory" is not a "law." What we understand about evolution changes. Just as our understanding of the atom has changed from it being solid and unbreakable, to the discovery of subatomic particles in orbits, to the current mathematical model that seems to be holding up all right. It's still a theory, but today it is much different than it was fifty years ago.
I wonder if anyone was upset when Dalton's gold foil experiment showed that an atom is stunningly mostly empty space? Rather this new knowledge was assimilated into the theory. Science learns... I'd rather the theories change, than scientists refuse to look at new data, or even tamper with it so it will fit. Haven't you clamed that the case in the past? Open that topic for discussion:D
lotuseatsvipers
08-08-02, 10:16 AM
I gave you a good reason. Even if you don't agree with what religious people believe, knowing what they believe would give you a tremendous asset in understanding where they are comming from. I do not believe in non-theism, but I learn about it so I can understand why they think the way they do. For those same reasons, religion ought to be in classrooms. The knowledge is an incredible tool in understanding world politics, or the guy just down the street.
You changed things around on us, I said show me why they are equally important. I never denied the importance of studying the religions of the world, but is it just as important as science? hardly.
We arleady have 'social studies' in the classroooms anyways. This is a much better solution than what you are proposing as it addresses the culture being studied as a whole rather than boiling it down to the just its religion.
Think of it this way: which is worse, if the whole world suddenly forgot everything about religion, or suddenly forgot everything about science.
Being open minded to others beliefs is a lot more important than actually knowing them.
Here is an interesting quote from David Berlinski that makes some interesting observations concerning evolution as it relates to predictions, falsifiability, and religion:
The evolutionary development of a particular species or population as such cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty. Predictions are possible only to the extent that a population or species happens to fit one of the patterns of evolution that have already been discovered.
Darwin conceived of evolution in terms of SMALL variations among organisms, variations which by a process of accretion allow one species to change continuously into another. This suggests a view in which living creatures are spread out smoothly over the great manifold of biological possibilities, like colors merging imperceptibly in a color chart.
Life, however, is absolutely nothing like this. Wherever one looks there is singularity, quirkiness, oddness, defiant individuality, and just plain weirdness. The redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti), is often consumed during copulation. Having achieved intromission, this spider performs a characteristic somersault, placing his abdomen directly over his partner's mouth. This behavior is called sexual suicide. Prior to the discovery of this behavior, no biologist would have predicted it. After all,
if the name of the game is leaving all the genes you can to the next generation then sexual suicide would appear disadvantageous. But in evolutionary theory it is always possible after the fact to concoct a "just so story" and so it is in this case. Evolutionists claim that spiders willing to pay for love are favored by female spiders and female spiders with whom they mate are less likely to mate again. The male spider perishes but his preposterous line persists.
This explanation resolves one question only at the cost of inviting another: why such bizarre behavior? In no other Latrodectus species does the male perform that obliging somersault, offering his partner the oblation of his life as well as his love. Are there general principles that specify sexual suicide among this species, but that forbid sexual suicide elsewhere? If so, what are they?
Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then, is its use? Why is the Pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird which often starves to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover bioluminescence, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do bees do their dance, but not the spider or the flies.
Why? Yes, why? The question, simple, clear, intellectually respectable, was put to the Nobel laureate George Wald. "Various organisms try various things," he finally answered, his words functioning as a verbal shrug, "they keep what works and discard the rest."
But suppose the manifold of life were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants not fireflies flickered enticingly at twilight. What then? An inversion of life's fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evolutionary biologists with few difficulties. VARIOUS ORGANISMS TRY VAROUS THINGS. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, and as a result has no empirical content.
A comparison with geology is instructive. No geological theory makes it possible to specify precisely a particular mountain's shape; but the underlying process of upthrust and crumbling is well understood, and geologists can specify something like a mountain's GENERIC shape. This provides geological theory with a firm connection to reality. A mountain arranging itself in the shape of the letter "A" is not a physically possible object; it is excluded by geological theory.
The theory of evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling ANYTHING out of court. That job must be done by nature. But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion. Lewontin makes a good point concerning this:
For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure
to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure
of the world? If scientists are going to use unbeatable theories about the
world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion.
In his book "Tautology in evolution and ecology", naturalist Henry Peters says: "The general statement of natural selection gives an exhaustive list of the responses of an organism to the environment: selection or rejection. No result could falsify the statement. In other words natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."
Natural selection is the sole scientific theory that cannot be superseded. Other theories, no matter how well-established are commonly overthrown or subsumed in light of later discoveries, much as Newtonian mechanics became a special case within the framework of Einsteinian relativity. But natural selection is presented as the last word in its field, monumental and unassailable, with all ensuing work subordinated to the original thesis. This is a complete reversal of the accepted method of scientific inquiry, one that effectively turns Darwin into a prophet and his theory into a pseudo-religion--in a word, an ideology.
This explains why vicious infighting goes on among evolutionary biologists, so similar to doctrinal battles among religious sects; why natural selection is presented as a universal doctrine, dominant far beyond the boundaries of biology, and why contradictory findings are jammed into the basic theory with no attempt at consistency. Lastly, it goes a long way toward explaining the incessant hostility that evolutionary biologists display toward religious faith--one does not see many astophysicists or cosmologists crowing about their victories over the fundamentalists.
The vast majority of scientific theories prevalent in the mid-19th century have been supplanted. How much longer will Darwin's immunity to fundamental scientific principals continue?
Xevious
08-08-02, 11:57 AM
I think you explained it better than I could, Warren. Good post.
"Think of it this way: which is worse, if the whole world suddenly forgot everything about religion, or suddenly forgot everything about science."
History proves that the people of this planet keep Religion over Science every time. After the Greek civalization collapsed, what happened?
lotuseatsvipers
08-08-02, 01:44 PM
History proves that the people of this planet keep Religion over Science every time. After the Greek civalization collapsed, what happened?
What in the world does that prove?:confused:
So if history DOES INDEED 'prove' that religion is maintained rather than science (I believe this is a load of... but I digress), it matters not one iota. The important question would be, was it beneficial to humans? no.
So my main question to you is still the same, better for humans to forget everything about religion or science?
The current creation/evolution debate is a modern form of the teleology versus non-teleology argument which started 2500 years ago.
Intelligent design is a form of teleology and not creationism.
Here are some interesting observations from biologist Mike Gene that helps explain this:
"Imagine you walk into a room full of scholars representing two very different perspectives on the world. One group argues that living things are the products of some greater wisdom. These scholars point to various biological structures, such as the human eye, and argue that the optimal arrangement of the parts seen in these structures point to some type of designer as their cause. This same group also highlights the harmony and beauty that is seen in the natural world, again suggesting a form of wisdom that lies behind it all. The other group sees things very differently. They appeal to chance and a huge span of time and argue that the harmony and optimal arrangements could very well have arisen by chance. They argue that natural forces, over huge spans of time, served to stabilize these ordered configurations and thus there is no need to invoke any type of designer. This same group then highlights various chaotic features of the world that suggest there is no designer.
You might be thinking that I have been talking about a group of creationists and evolutionary scientists arguing in the auditorium of a local college. You would be wrong. The scholars arguing in that room actually once argued in the halls of Ancient Greece. The teleologists were represented by men such as Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle. The nonteleologists were represented by such men as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos. These thinkers argued back-and-forth with each other over a period of about 200 years. Their works would later influence such European scientists and philosophers as Robert Boyle, William Paley and David Hume.
In other words, the arguments for design did not start with Paley, nor did they start with naive religious believers. No, such arguments began with people like Socrates and Aristotle."
And then there is the Roman poet Lucretius Carus (99-55BC). Lucretius believed life to have originated at some definite moment in the past by natural processes but that created beings included 'a host of monsters, grotesque in build and aspect' who were subsequently eliminated by their sterility.
These ideas sound strangely similar to those of Charles Darwin. In fact, Lucretius even wrote:
"In those days, again, many species must have died out altogether and failed to reproduce their kind. Every species that you now see drawing the breath of the world survived either by cunning or by prowess or by speed. In addition, there are many that survive under human protection because their usefulness has commended them to our care."
I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin borrowed these ideas and thus his views about natural selection are not something that was forced upon him by the raw data (as the romantic story book version of history teaches).
The point is that this debate between teleology and materialism is at least 2500 years old and has involved some of history's greatest thinkers. The notion that current ID arguments are nothing more than Christian reactions to the painful "truth" of Darwinism is a notion divorced from historical context.
If one's sense of history goes no further than 100 years, it's easy to get the impression that materialism has been vindicated and teleology has been refuted. But if that sense spans 2500 years, one suspects only that materialism has just recently obtained the upper hand with more sophisticated versions of the same arguments. The ID movement has the potential of evening the playing field by reviving its arguments in more sophisticated versions. Is the 2500 year-old debate really over? Of course not.
The Harvard Political Review
Questioning the Orthodoxy By Richard Halvorson
Darwinian evolution's academic monopoly is being challenged by a new scientific theory that claims to better explain the evidence. Historically, most evolution critics have been scientifically illiterate religious zealots. But a growing number of serious scientists touting Ivy League credentials, multiple Ph.D.'s, and tenured professorships are challenging Darwin's previously incontrovertible academic standing. Many of these "evolution skeptics" adhere to what is known as Intelligent Design theory.
Intelligent Design (I.D.) argues that evolution can explain much about biology, but not everything. The immense complexity of DNA and the dizzying intricacy of the simplest cell were unknown prior to the 20th century. In light of these discoveries, current I.D. research assesses the limits of complexity that can originate through natural processes alone. Advocates of Intelligent Design conclude that life's origins must have required an intervening intelligence, because natural reactions cannot produce such intricate biochemical structures.
However, this conclusion's possible theological implications have drawn severe attack from dogmatically secular academics: if scientific evidence implies the intervention of an intentional designer, the most logical designer probably would be a deity. Orthodox Darwinists are using their control over academic institutions, research facilities, political figures, state school boards, and national media to oppose research on this new theory.
Atheism Impeding Science
Challenges to Darwinism have been suppressed ever since Origin of Species' was published. Louis Agassiz, a 19th-century Harvard paleontologist and founding member of the National Academy of Sciences, was shunned by academia when he alleged that Darwinism gained prominence in spite of evidence. As he wrote in 1869, "Darwinism excludes nearly all the mass of acquired information," and "the explanation supplied by Darwin and his henchmen is not congruent with the facts."
However, within a decade of Origin of Species, only a handful of scientists retained their skepticism of the new theory. Darwinism's rapid success was, in part, religiously motivated. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Similarly, Michael Ruse, editor of the journal Biology and Philosophy, told the HPR, "Scientists have certainly introduced issues of atheism."
Yet their dogmatic adherence to a materialist explanation of the universe is itself unscientific and has impeded scientific progress in the past. Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time that despite mounting evidence in the mid-20th century, scientists made "a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang," because that explanation "smacks of divine intervention." Afraid that the Big Bang's theological implications would unseat their atheistic dogma, scientists ignored evidence and resisted the true theory of the universe's origin for decades. Darwinist ideologues are similarly impeding current progress on Intelligent Design.
Indeed, Darwinists have organized to counter I.D. research and education efforts. Skip Evans is Network Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a national political effort to suppress challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy. Evans said the NCSE opposes ideas and evidence that would "water down" Darwinism in the classroom. Critiques of evolution might "cast seeds of doubt in the students' minds," Evans told the HPR. Responding to I.D. theorists' allegations of institutional bias, Evans said they are "just whining" and "being crybabies."
Censorship and Discrimination
Scientists and researchers who question Darwinism tell of intense censorship and job discrimination. A doctoral student had to leave Rice
University after he presented research casting doubt on Darwinism. Dr. Jed Macosko was denied a postdoctoral research position at Caltech because everyone the lab hired had to be "convinced of evolution," Macosko told the HPR.
At Baylor University, professor and I.D. theorist William Dembski experienced what he called "academic McCarthyism" from science faculty who withdrew funding from Dembski's research facility after discovering that his research challenged Darwinism. He compares doubting the Darwinian Orthodoxy to opposing the the party line of a Stalinist regime. "What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? That's the sort of situation we're in. You have to play your cards very close to the vest, and you can't really say what you're about," Dembski told the HPR.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist and I.D. theorist, told the HPR that questioning Darwinism endangers one's career. "There's good reason to be afraid. Even if you're not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known."
Because of this discrimination, some professors have adopted pseudonyms. "Mike Gene," who hosts www.idthink.net, (http://www.idthink.net,) teaches cell biology at a secular private college; he is waiting for tenure before revealing his identity and publishing a book he has written on Intelligent Design.
Illogical and Misinformed Critics
Opponents of Intelligent Design paint its supporters as religious fundamentalists promoting an incorrect theory. But this criticism stems from misinformation and poor logic. First, not all evolution critics are religious. For example, geneticist Michael Denton, an agnostic, wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which persuaded many scientists to support Intelligent Design. Second, even if a claim has a religious source, it is not automatically false, though the Darwinists imply otherwise. Third, few critics actually address I.D.'s scientific arguments. Indeed, while I.D. theorists simply want to talk about science, Darwinists often bring religion into the matter, accusing them of being "fundamentalists" and "creationists."
Darwinists also accuse the I.D. community of "quote mining" and "misrepresentation" of research questioning Darwinism. For example, Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould writes of failed Darwinist embryological theories and predicts a "new and general theory of evolution" to replace the common textbook orthodoxy. Intelligent Design theorists fully acknowledge that Gould is not rejecting Darwinism, but they believe that the issues he discusses reveal deeper dilemmas that are better resolved through the I.D. paradigm. Moreover, because I.D. theorists are shut out from publishing in established journals, they have created two peer-reviewed academic journals of their own, adding to the prodigious publications on I.D. theory.
Highlighting evolution's role as the golden calf of the academy, French scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin once called Darwinism "a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow." But I.D. theorists hope to dismantle Darwin's shrine in the pursuit of scientific truth, to discover the bounds of evolution's explanatory power. Behe told the HPR how I.D. research could change the future of science: "Darwinism will be in the position of Newtonian physics today. It will be seen as a good explanation for a limited set of data. The more we discover about the cell and how life works, the more intricate and complicated we see things are, the less plausible Darwinism becomes."
James R
08-09-02, 01:22 AM
The fact that the first long quote does not explain the well-known evolutionary reason why a spider might commit suicide after mating makes me rather suspicious of the agenda of the people who wrote these articles.
I'll say it again: why do religious people try to put their ideas in the science department?
Science and religion are two different things.
Creationism is not part of science, since it can not be proven, as of yet there are no machines which can measure God.
The End.
James R>>The fact that the first long quote does not explain the well-known evolutionary reason why a spider might commit suicide after mating makes me rather suspicious of the agenda of the people who wrote these articles.<<
The article does provide a well-known explanation given by evolutionists as to why a spider might commit suicide. Evolutionists can also provide equally convincing explanations as to why it would be dis-advantageous for spiders to commit suicide. The point is that evolutionary "just so stories" can explain anything after the fact, thus they explain nothing. They have no empirical content. There are no evolutionary principles or laws from which one could predict sexual suicide in a given species of spider. Simply trying to establish that something is possible is about as weak of a claim there can be.
Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis. - Robert Dorit, Biology Dept., Yale University
Xevious
08-09-02, 12:46 PM
Is it better for humans to forget everything about religion or science?"
Religion and Science have similarities and differences which give each of them differnt roles in society. Religion works on building human community and laying down ethical foundations. These are things which science is quite candidly not qualified to handle, no matter how you argue it. Science works logically through the methods True and True is True, or True and False is False. Many things in human morals and ethics are simply not designed simply in black and white terms. It's ironic, that if one tries to apply logic to moral arguments, one finds that logic can support ANY argument as long as one has the facts to back it up. This fallability ot Logic is one lost to many people. In theory, one can justify genocide through the premice of the world being overpopulated. You and I both know that the thought of Genocide is highly questionable to most people, but scientifically, IF one can prove an overpopulation burdon, one can justify the genocide as a logical solution.
What you have their is an example of scientific intellectualism spinning out of control without moral guidence. Adolph Hitler is a wonderful example. Hitler was in every way, in intellectual man. He painted artworks, and his art is still considered to be of good quality by many artisans. He collected ancient artifacts and had a very high interest in archaeology and ancient civilizations. He played a musical insturment. He founded Germany's Autobaun and he came up with the 1st prototype design for the Volkswagon Beetle. No matter how you slice it, Hitler was a VERY intelligent intellectual. He was a billiant tactician in World War II - he took out France, which at the time had the worlds best Army. He nearly captured Moscow, deep in Russian territory. With Italy at his side, Europe fell in a very short amount of time. But, his morals were highly questionable. His thinking spun out of control, and he wiped out almost 1/5 of the worlds Jewish population to say nothing of the hundreds in France, Russia, Poland, and many other countries.
What scares me is that if one reads his autobiography, he was able to find logical justifications for much of his beliefs. You might laugh at me, but it's true.
In the end, when civalizations collapse and people rebuild, Religion always comes out on top because Science is not qualified to build human community. If it was, the Greeks would have rebuilt on a scientifice foundation - and they were probably the only civalization his history in which science ran so far through their core. If they couldn't do it, NO ONE could do it.
I am not taking an opinion which is "better" because both are very important in society. I am just saying that Science cannot and will not ever take Religion's function in society over.
fadingCaptain
08-09-02, 12:47 PM
Warren,
Evolution is the best current working theory that explains the origins of man. Until a better theory is offered, nothing else should be taught in science class. To contradict this, you must produce a workable theory (inteliigent design? - remember you need evidence) that holds up to the scientific method.
All of your posts are futile. Sure, there are many things to question about evolution. We should continue to question evolution and its processes. It is constantly being refined. But that is not the topic of this thread. Until a better theory is provided, evolution is the best theory we have.
If you think there is a better alternative, post about that and the evidence to support it. We will see how it holds up to scientific scrutiny.
Xevious
08-09-02, 12:57 PM
The whole scientific method is currently based around the idea that God is not proveable, everything must be naturalistic. That's what the issue boils down to. This only RECENTLY become the definition for science, and I should point out that Naturalists created this definition around the time Darwin proposed "Origin of Species." I think Scientists were making the statement "We don't need God anymore." because until then, they didn't have a purely naturalistic theory which explained the origins of life on Earth. After they did, they changed the rules of science to say "God is not proveable."
Before ANYONE talks any further about wether or not Intelligent Design is scientific or not, we must settle the question of wether or not the premice of "God is not proveable" is a true statement or not.
We need to settle rules for that debate in itself, because we are going beyond what is science and into much deeper intellectual waters.
Warren,
(From the previous page...)
Richard Dawkins....says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to an atheist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed?
Nothing is wrong with a non-materialist suspecting intellegent design. However, scientists and materialists have several ways of expressing their practical abhorance of non-material excrescence, e.g.:
Occam's Razor:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", or "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora", or "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity", or "What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more," or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond need."
Isaac Newton; Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy, Principia Mathematica; Rule 1:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes."
Ernst Mach, Principle of Economy:
"Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."
Einstein;
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Positivism: The invisible and the non-existant look very much alike.
================================================== ==================
Until proof of intelligent design is demonstrably manifest (e.g.: the designer drops in for a cup of tea), science & materialism must treat intelligent design as an unnecessary assumption because it adds ultimately only the impossible task of explaining how the very first designer itself came to be 'designed".
"It's turtles, all the way down." (http://www.the-funneled-web.com/Hawking.htm)
Mr.G>>Nothing is wrong with a non-materialist suspecting intellegent design. However, scientists and materialists have several ways of expressing their practical abhorance of non-material excrescence.<<
A non-teleologist can explain anything by invoking imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments, all situated in
the unobservable ancient past. They accept all this imaginative speculation for blind watchmaking but demand absolute proof for seeing watchmaking. This is obviously a double standard.
From such a position, all evidence must point to a non-teleological cause. If it doesn't, then it becomes "no evidence." That is, a non-teleologist has only two options - evidence for a non-teleological cause or the unknown. Thus, it is common for non-teleologists to interpret the fact that there is no evidence for their positions to mean we are dealing with the unknown. This also explains why it is that when non-teleologists are asked what type of data they would consider evidence for intelligent design, they inevitably retreat into the realm where they demand certain proofs of ID. They are so indebted to their world view that it is not possible for them to tolerate an ID inference because it is only an inference. They need proof and certainty. But only with ID explanations.
Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology. It is a faulty assumption that science is about coming up with the best possible explanation. Non-teleologists embrace extraordinary claims without any evidence, yet demand (while pounding the podium) proof of ID.
To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID. One then takes it from there. Proof would be nice, but science shows us that we don't need it. For example, there is no independent evidence that the type of life forms posited to exist prior to modern-day-like bacteria ever existed. Yet this is a working hypothesis that is the meat-and-potatoes of work in abiogenesis.
Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and
vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as
we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). Thus, I am trying to determine if there is solid evidence behind attributing major evolutionary innovations to random mutations and natural selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection.
I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life in the fact that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life. I think life expresses enough complex specified information such that ID is a better explanation for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond mere suspicion and takes me close to the realm of the "most likely."
Thus, since I have (in my mind) good evidence that life was
probably the product of intelligent design and the fact that evolution is so vulnerable to ID means I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis.
Cutting to the chase...
...I have (in my mind) good evidence that life was probably...
Oxymoron: Certain Speculation.
See, there can be no evidence, cause evidence is used in the scientific way, and science has excluded things they can not measure, except in hypotheses.
Mr.G>>Cutting to the chase...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...I have (in my mind) good evidence that life was probably...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxymoron: Certain Speculation.<<
Yes, my teleological views on the origin of life are speculative and tentative. Are your non-teleological views on abiogenesis, speculative and tentative? Do they involve any inferences, any references to unobservable entities?
A4Ever>>See, there can be no evidence, cause evidence is used in the scientific way, and science has excluded things they can not measure, except in hypotheses.<<
Well, I would like to know what things science has measured that
would lead one to conclude a non-teleological origin of life.
FadingCaptain>>All of your posts are futile. Sure, there are many things to question about evolution. We should continue to question evolution and its processes. It is constantly being refined. But that is not the topic of this thread. Until a better theory is provided, evolution is the best theory we have. <<
Yes, Darwinian evolution is the best non-teleological theory available on the origin and development of life and I suppose you want to keep it until a better non-teleological theory comes along. I'm questioning this whole notion that in order for a theory to be useful and increase our understanding of biotic reality it has to be devoid of teleology.
Warren,
Yes, my teleological views on the origin of life are speculative and tentative. Are your non-teleological views on abiogenesis, speculative and tentative? Do they involve any inferences, any references to unobservable entities?
Yes. Albeit simpler--less complex--entities, the majority associated with currently observable, extant evolutionary kin. ;)
James R
08-11-02, 09:41 AM
<i>Before ANYONE talks any further about wether or not Intelligent Design is scientific or not, we must settle the question of wether or not the premice of "God is not proveable" is a true statement or not.</i>
Do you think you can prove the existence of God?
I am interested to see your proof.
James R
08-11-02, 09:50 AM
Warren,
<i>A non-teleologist can explain anything by invoking imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments, all situated in
the unobservable ancient past.</i>
Yes, but those explanations won't hold up to scrutiny against things like the fossil record, genetics etc. You appear to be claiming that biology, ecology and even chemsitry have no observational basis. That is obviously not true, because all of these are predictive sciences.
<i>Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology.</i>
Science is the study of nature. All scientific explanations are "naturalistic". If you want to explain things in terms of what a supreme being is rather than what he does, you cross over into religion.
<i>To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID.</i>
That's fine, but your suspicion need not be good enough for everybody. Many scientists just don't find teleology compelling, I'm afraid. If the teleologists could present something unequivocal they would change minds.
<i>Thus, I am trying to determine if there is solid evidence behind attributing major evolutionary innovations to random mutations and natural selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection.</i>
Good for you! Keep trying. Perhaps you'll succeed. Who knows?
<i>...I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis.</i>
You seem to have already made up your mind on this, before all the evidence is in. Strangely, that appears to be exactly what you are accusing non-teleologists of. Hmm... Double standard, anybody?
Warren>>Yes, my teleological views on the origin of life are speculative and tentative. Are your non-teleological views on abiogenesis, speculative and tentative? Do they involve any inferences, any references to unobservable entities?<<
MR. G>>Yes. Albeit simpler--less complex--entities, the majority associated with currently observable, extant evolutionary kin.<<
Warren>>There is no evidence for the simpler--less complex--entities you speak of. Besides, is there any reason to think the simplest explanation for the origin of life is the true explanation given that history is loaded with complex contingencies? And when it comes to the origin of life, is the thesis that excludes ID *really* the simpler one? Is it really simpler to imagine all degrees of simpler life forms (including those that exist without proteins and DNA) than to propose an intelligent agent? One can make arguments about this kind of stuff, but in the end, it boils down to an individual's philosophical presuppositions.
For instance, one can make an explanation for the origin of dozens of breeds of dogs over the past two hundred years simpler by excluding the role of intelligent agents but the explanation would be wrong. <<
Yes. But the difference is that would be denying intelligent agents already in evidence.
We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. The multiple
examples of artificial selection demonstrate this. For example, any
scientific explanation that attempted to account for the existence of domestic animals, and different breeds of dogs, would be incomplete without reference to intelligent intervention. Better yet, the shear number of different bacteria that exist with resistance to the huge number of different antibiotics cannot validly be explained without reference to intelligent intervention.
And this raises an interesting question, namely, without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful.
Warren>>A non-teleologist can explain anything by invoking imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments, all situated in the unobservable ancient past. <<
James R>>Yes, but those explanations won't hold up to scrutiny against things like the fossil record, genetics etc. You appear to be claiming that biology, ecology and even chemsitry have no observational basis. That is obviously not true, because all of these are predictive sciences. <<
Warren>> You misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree that chemistry, biology, and genetics have an observational basis but current abiogenesis explanations invoke imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments. Are you unware of this?<<
Warren>>Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology.<<
James R>>Science is the study of nature. All scientific explanations are "naturalistic". If you want to explain things in terms of what a supreme being is rather than what he does, you cross over into religion. <<
Warren>>Intelligent design doesn't invoke a deity. Here's the deal. Some scientists think certain aspects of biotic reality look much more like products of advanced bioengineering and nanotechnology than the tinkering of a blind watchmaker. "Much of what we call biology is really nanotechnology ," says Michael J. Heller, a professor of bioengineering.
Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call, but I confess to assigning things that look like products of nanotechnology to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. Not enough to establish design, but enough to build on.<<
Warren>>To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID. <<
James R>>That's fine, but your suspicion need not be good enough for everybody. Many scientists just don't find teleology compelling, I'm afraid. If the teleologists could present something unequivocal they would change minds. <<
Warren>> I don't expect my suspicions to be good enough for everybody.
As for teleologists presenting something unequivocal I suppose you mean (1) showing the designer in action, or (2) discovering the actual design protocols (i.e., the designer's lab notebook) or (3) providing an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved.
The problem is that even if life was indeed designed (for example), there is not one good reason (not one) why we should be able to do (1), (2), or (3). That is, (1), (2), and (3) are simply not entailed by the truth of ID in history. So the question is how do we go about detecting ID without (1), (2), and (3). And that is what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference.
Warren>>Thus, I am trying to determine if there is solid evidence behind attributing major evolutionary innovations to random mutations and natural selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection. <<
James R>>Good for you! Keep trying. Perhaps you'll succeed. Who knows? <<
Warren>>...I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis. <<
James R>>You seem to have already made up your mind on this, before all the evidence is in. Strangely, that appears to be exactly what you are accusing non-teleologists of. Hmm... Double standard, anybody. <<
Warren>> No, it's the non-teleologists that are closed-minded. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many features of the biological world are the result of evolution but I doubt you are willing to attribute anything in the biological world to intelligent design.
I don't need certainty. I'm not looking for a fail proof detector of ID. After all, you don't have a detector of purely non-teleological processes at work in the distant past. Yet this doesn't stop you from attributing everything in nature to a blind watchmaker.
I believe ID can be detected in a working sense. That is, one can score features that provisionally place something in the tentative "designed" category and build from there. This is why ID researchers prefer making a "design inference" rather than asserting they have detected design.<<
James R
08-11-02, 11:54 PM
Warren,
I think that most of what you've said is quite reasonable. It's a nice question as to whether intelligent design may be at work in our universe. However, the important question from a scientific point of view, as opposed to a purely philosophical one, is whether a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory. If ID theory adds nothing new in terms of predictability or whatever, there is no reason to adopt it. In fact, Occam's razor demands that we do not adopt it.
Addressing your points:
<i>You misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree that chemistry, biology, and genetics have an observational basis but current abiogenesis explanations invoke imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments. Are you unware of this?</i>
Yes, I'm unaware of this. I am not an expert in abiogenesis. Perhaps you are and you can inform me. I am not aware of any scientist claiming to have a final explanation for abiogenesis at present, but perhaps you know something I don't. You say that proposed mechanisms are imaginary. I say there are some hypotheses which may turn out to be right or may turn out to be wrong. That's science.
<i>Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call, but I confess to assigning things that look like products of nanotechnology to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. Not enough to establish design, but enough to build on.</i>
Fair enough. I'm open to such an explanation, too, but so far the evidence isn't strong enough to demand one, as far as I can see.
<i>... what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference.</i>
Sounds like a reasonable aim. Any results so far?
<i>No, it's the non-teleologists that are closed-minded. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many features of the biological world are the result of evolution but I doubt you are willing to attribute anything in the biological world to intelligent design.</i>
Apart from examples of artificial selection, no - at least not yet. But you make a mistake if you asume that I automatically attribute everything to a blind watchmaker. I like to keep my options open.
James R>> Warren,
I think that most of what you've said is quite reasonable. It's a nice question as to whether intelligent design may be at work in our universe. However, the important question from a scientific point of view, as opposed to a purely philosophical one, is whether a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory. If ID theory adds nothing new in terms of predictability or whatever, there is no reason to adopt it. In fact, Occam's razor demands that we do not adopt it.<<
Warren>>The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method from an ID perspective and see what comes from it. You wouldn't believe the enormous opposition to ID that exists in the academic community. It's not just about what gets taught in school. There is immense pressure to prevent an investigation into ID from proceeding.
As for Occam's razor. While I admit it's a nice rule of thumb, I personally am not convinced that the Razor applies when trying to distinguish between the teleological and non-teleological world views. I think the Razor is too blunt to be of much help with such a
large-scale ambiguity.<<
Warren>>You misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree that chemistry, biology, and genetics have an observational basis but current abiogenesis explanations invoke imaginary molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary selective advantages, and imaginary environments. Are you unware of this?<<
James R >>Yes, I'm unaware of this. I am not an expert in abiogenesis. Perhaps you are and you can inform me. I am not aware of any scientist claiming to have a final explanation for abiogenesis at present, but perhaps you know something I don't. You say that proposed mechanisms are imaginary. I say there are some hypotheses which may turn out to be right or may turn out to be wrong. That's science.<<
Warren>> No, I'm not an expert in abiogenesis but I have read the current literature on this topic and my understanding is that when we look to the origin of life, there is no evidence that indicates the Earth did indeed spawn life and no one has produced the mechanism that is required by the assumption life was indeed spawned from geochemistry. <<
Warren>>Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call, but I confess to assigning things that look like products of nanotechnology to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. Not enough to establish design, but enough to build on.<<
James R>> Fair enough. I'm open to such an explanation, too, but so far the evidence isn't strong enough to demand one, as far as I can see.<<
Warren>>We need to keep in mind that there is such a thing as a continuum of evidence. There are data that lead to hunches and used to form speculations. There are data which then work to strengthen or weaken these original hunches. There are data likely to convince one predisposed to be convinced. Data likely to convince those who are neutral. And data likely to convince a hard core skeptic.
The question I like to ask persons to determine their openness to ID is this: what data would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of the biotic world originated through intelligent design? <<
Warren >>... what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference.
James R>>Sounds like a reasonable aim. Any results so far?<<
Warren>> Well, you have to understand that ID is in it's infancy and few scientists are working on it. I can't say I have seen anything that would convince a hard-core skeptic, however, for me there are a lot of things concerning the origin of life and the workings of the cell that cause me to strongly suspect ID. I certainly see a basis for further investigation.<<
Warren>>No, it's the non-teleologists that are closed-minded. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many features of the biological world are the result of evolution but I doubt you are willing to attribute anything in the biological world to intelligent design.<<
James R>>Apart from examples of artificial selection, no - at least not yet. But you make a mistake if you asume that I automatically attribute everything to a blind watchmaker. I like to keep my options open.<<
Warren>> I'm glad to hear you don't automatically attribute everything to a blind watchmaker and are keeping your options open. We have more in common than I originally thought.<<
....what data would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of the biotic world originated through intelligent design?
A protein sequence that when 'decrypted' says something like "Made in Japan". ;)
Of course, it would have to come from an amber source, or a meteorite, or something datable as pre-modern.
Warren>>....what data would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of the biotic world originated through intelligent design?<<
Mr. G>> A protein sequence that when 'decrypted' says something like "Made in Japan".
Of course, it would have to come from an amber source, or a meteorite, or something datable as pre-modern.<<
Warren>>I asked what data would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of the biotic world originated through intelligent design and you reply with something that amounts to absolute proof of ID. On the other hand, I bet there are dozens of things, even very subtle ones, that cause you to suspect blind watchmaking. No proof needed here! Nothing like a good old fashion double standard is there?<<
I asked what data would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of the biotic world originated through intelligent design and you reply with something that amounts to absolute proof of ID.
The fact that my "merely" equals your "absolute" is evidence enough that our respective standards of evidentiary relevence are quite differently founded.
I can imagine a variety of ways to counterfeit your 'absolute' evidence.
That's why having tea with the original designer would be most helpful.
Mr.G>>The fact that my "merely" equals your "absolute" is evidence enough that our respective standards of evidentiary relevence are quite differently founded.
I can imagine a variety of ways to counterfeit your 'absolute' evidence.
That's why having tea with the original designer would be most helpful.<<
Warren>> I'm only asking that you apply the same evidentiary standard to ID that you apply to blind watchmaking. Demanding an interview with the designer or the discovery of secret messages encoded in the cell is like me demanding to see Darwinian evolution produce the genetic code or create cells. In either case the demand is essentially for proof rather than evidence.
I find it interesting that for you there is no middle ground between no evidence for ID and absolute proof for ID. That's not the way science works. Most discoveries in science begin with a suspicion, a hunch, or an inference that is followed up with an investigation. Without suspicions science would grind to a halt. Yet for some reason you expect ID to start off with proof and skip over the suspicion followed by an investigation stage. Why? <<
overdoze
08-13-02, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Warren
Sure, and I would like to see a blind watchmaker creating a cell.
So would I. It would be the most amazing refutation of evolution I can think of: a whole cell just assembling out of nothing!
BTW, Warren, I don't know about others but I find your posts quite hard to read. It would benefit us all if you would use the quotation mechanism made available by UBB (upon which sciforums is built.) Namely, enclose the text you want to quote between a [ quote] ... [/quote] pair (no space after the first [; I just wanted to prevent it from becoming an actual quote.) For more info, see this page:
http://www.sciforums.com/f47/s/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode
Or at least do what James R does with italics.
I find it interesting that for you there is no middle ground between no evidence for ID and absolute proof for ID.
I guess I am of a mind to require an intelligent designer to submit to peer review--an important part of science 'working'.
If an intelligent designer can create a whole universe, it can even more easily make an appearance.
Most discoveries in science begin with a suspicion, a hunch, or an inference that is followed up with an investigation.
Well, I suspect you are operating post-priori.
....you expect ID to start off with proof and skip over the suspicion....
I expect an unprovable intelligent designer to show me they're provable. Surely, that is within its capabilty. It's not as though I'm asking it to create a whole new universe for me.
Originally posted by Warren
We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. The multiple examples of artificial selection demonstrate this. For example, any scientific explanation that attempted to account for the existence of domestic animals, and different breeds of dogs, would be incomplete without reference to intelligent intervention. Better yet, the shear number of different bacteria that exist with resistance to the huge number of different antibiotics cannot validly be explained without reference to intelligent intervention.
And this raises an interesting question, namely, without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful.
Nice straw man here, but you can't see the forest for the trees, i.e. the statement for the words. The effect of humans on dogs and bacteria (symbiosis) is not the same as a supernatural force or a God intervening in worldly affairs, or of a greater Intelligence guiding all evolution.
Le Coq
Originally posted by Warren
Mr.G>>The fact that my "merely" equals your "absolute" is evidence enough that our respective standards of evidentiary relevence are quite differently founded.
I can imagine a variety of ways to counterfeit your 'absolute' evidence.
That's why having tea with the original designer would be most helpful.<<
Warren>> I'm only asking that you apply the same evidentiary standard to ID that you apply to blind watchmaking. Demanding an interview with the designer or the discovery of secret messages encoded in the cell is like me demanding to see Darwinian evolution produce the genetic code or create cells. In either case the demand is essentially for proof rather than evidence.
I find it interesting that for you there is no middle ground between no evidence for ID and absolute proof for ID. That's not the way science works. Most discoveries in science begin with a suspicion, a hunch, or an inference that is followed up with an investigation. Without suspicions science would grind to a halt. Yet for some reason you expect ID to start off with proof and skip over the suspicion followed by an investigation stage. Why? <<
ID is not content with just grinding its way through experimentation for now; it wants to be considered a theory without a single shred of evidence. Religious lobbyists want it included in public school science courses without actually being scientifically proven. By definition of theory, it should at least have some data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an hypothesis.
Le Coq
Le Coq>>Nice straw man here, but you can't see the forest for the trees, i.e. the statement for the words. The effect of humans on dogs and bacteria (symbiosis) is not the same as a supernatural force or a God intervening in worldly affairs, or of a greater Intelligence guiding all evolution. <<
Intelligent design doesn't posit a supernatural agent. ID is an attempt to arrive at the best explanation for the origin of certain things in nature that look like products of advanced bioengineering. To explain bioengineering we need assume nothing more exotic than human-like intelligence.
Le Coq>>ID is not content with just grinding its way through experimentation for now; it wants to be considered a theory without a single shred of evidence. Religious lobbyists want it included in public school science courses without actually being scientifically proven. By definition of theory, it should at least have some data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an hypothesis. <<
Has a non-teleological origin of life been proven? Has a non-teleological orgin of the genetic code been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of any molecular machine been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of mammals been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of human consciousness been proven? Do you really want to ban discussion of all things unproven from school science classes?
I think there is a basic confusion here as to what ID is. ID is not truly theory, nor hypothesis. Intelligent Design, like naturalism, is a distinct epistemology. ID and naturalism are frameworks for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for those theories and hypotheses.
ID removes the assumption of naturalism from the epistemology of origins research and the evolutionary sciences, putting them on epistemological par with archaeology and SETI. It adds potential alternatives to the spectrum of possibilities to be considered.
I agree that ID research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, ID has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education but that has nothing to do with whether or not ID is a fruitful research paradigm.
In the words of ID advocate Bruce Gordon:
Intelligent Design is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric
Warren,
In the words of ID advocate Bruce Gordon: Intelligent Design is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.
You must mean of the [url=http://www.discovery.org/]Discovery Institute (]Bruce Gordon[/url)'s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/crsc/about.html).
"... the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business of appearning without broad recognition from the scientific community ... inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quallity research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other. ...If design theory is to make a contribution to science, it must be worth pursuing on the basis of its own merits, not as an exercise in Christian 'cultural renewal,' the weight of which it cannot bear.... In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced alongside (or perhaps onto by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric." Bruce Gordon, ex-CRSC (http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/) Fellow, Science and Theology 2:1 (2001), p. 9
Yet, the CRSC still advocates that because science has presumably untoward affects on culture (like its post-Galileo association with materialism), science needs to be 'corrected' away from materialism by having culture re-injected into it--the very over-culturization that drove it away to materialism in the first place. eppur si mouve.
Same Old Song and Dance --Aerosmith
I agree that ID research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement....but that has nothing to do with whether or not ID is a fruitful research paradigm.
Now, I can get into entertaining without too much problem the notion that aliens may have genetically engineered our ancestoral nucleotides. Still, science isn't going to be made better by 'alien abductees' forming science research-sounding/looking 'institutes' to exorcise materialism from science, to give them something to do while they await evidence of the existence of alien probes to come to light.
Naturalists, materialists, & scientists needn't automatically embrace ID, either camp, just because it claims to be a probative tool. Not until ID produces something probabtively compelling and less-well explained by other lines of reasoning and investigation. Until then, ID can too easily appear like one mouth with two different messages for two different audiences.
Double-talking Jive--Guns 'n Roses
Blah:
>>Intelligent design doesn't posit a supernatural agent. ID is an attempt to arrive at the best explanation for the origin of certain things in nature that look like products of advanced bioengineering. To explain bioengineering we need assume nothing more exotic than human-like intelligence. [Warren]<<
No matter how it looks to certain people, it is best explained without ID. 2001 was a novel. A story. Fiction. Eric Von Daniken was a crackpot.
Blah:
>>Has a non-teleological origin of life been proven? Has a non-teleological orgin of the genetic code been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of any molecular machine been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of mammals been proven? Has a non-teleological origin of human consciousness been proven? Do you really want to ban discussion of all things unproven from school science classes? [Warren]<<
Are you sure all ravens are black? This is as dear as the "no one has ever seen a species evolve" gem. You can PROVE mathematical things with no room for error. In the empirical world, without falling into an inductive trap, evidence for certain hypotheses can support a theory better than other theories. It makes no sense to construct and continue to work with another theory that produces no cogent models to work from. Unless we find a monolith or other extra-terrestrial craft, the quest for ID is a theological or fictional one. A non-teleological origin of life is the one that is best supported by the evidence.
Blah^2:
>>I think there is a basic confusion here as to what ID is. ID is not truly theory, nor hypothesis. Intelligent Design, like naturalism, is a distinct epistemology. ID and naturalism are frameworks for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for those theories and hypotheses. [Warren]<<
Well, non-teleological, naturalistic evolution IS a theory, and you can call ID whatever you want, but it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck. Scientists, to the extent that they work with epistemologies at all, work within their subspecialties and prove small steps without trying to prop up or destroy grand kingpins such as the age of the universe or the origin of life.
>>Naturalists, materialists, & scientists needn't automatically embrace ID, either camp, just because it claims to be a probative tool. Not until ID produces something probabtively compelling and less-well explained by other lines of reasoning and investigation. Until then, ID can too easily appear like one mouth with two different messages for two different audiences. [Mr. G]<<
Word.
IDers can call themseleves whatever, made up of compromising Christians or just daydreaming or fearful agnostics who read too much pulp SF, but the sad thing is that they are superstition-struck by the beauty of the inherent design in nature itself: that matter and energy align themselves according to their structure, the inherent structure of the universe, and that all chemical reactions and life processes are emergent properties arising out of a structure of matter and energy. To miss the awesomeness of this phenomenon as something arising from itself, concluded by jumping into beliefs such as "this is _____'s doing" is nothing more than the result of ignorance usually marked by a lifetime of non-rigorous thinking. It's as if to be mortal, soulless, and the result of impartial natural processes is a bad thing.
A decent article on the fallacies if ID thinking can be found at:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Forgive me if this link has already been referenced. This is a mighty long thread.
Le Coq
has crowed.
James R
08-16-02, 12:13 AM
Thanks for the link, Le Coq.
I think it is worth reproducing the last couple of paragraphs:
<font color="blue">"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.</font>
Warren,
Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo (http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p48a.html)
"When presenting their views before the public, ID advocates generally disguise their religious intent. In academic venues, they avoid any direct reference to the Designer. They portray ID as merely an exercise in detecting design, citing examples from archaeology, the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project, and other enterprises."
Warren: "ID removes the assumption of naturalism from the epistemology of origins research and the evolutionary sciences, putting them on epistemological par with archeology and SETI. It adds potential alternatives to the spectrum of possibilities to be considered."
Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-55/iss-6/p48b.html)
Science works--and works exceedingly well--because of its naturalistic approach, predictive nature, and methods of operation. To be valid, science does not have to be true."
Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Enquiry (http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html)
"Neither author above said or knows whether there is a supernatural purpose: they were both speaking from a completely scientific and therefore naturalistic point of view. They would not deny that there might be a supernatural purpose. I am sure they would say that if supernaturalists want to believe there is such a supernatural purpose, let them believe it, but don't try to say that such a purpose exists in nature--it doesn't, as science has revealed beyond all doubt."
The best part about the first link:
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/images/p48afig1.jpg
James R>>I think it is worth reproducing the last couple of paragraphs:
A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. <<
Warren>>If this is just another way of saying that science can't investigate the supernatural, I agree. However, if it's saying that the scientific method, the process of hypothesizing, predicting, and testing, can't be used to investigate whether or not life may be the product of advanced bioengineering then I disagree.
We are not talking about a "God did it" miraculous empirically undetectable hypothesis. We are talking about looking for traces of bioengineering and nanotechnology from billions of years ago. This approach is naturalistic intelligent design, much like we see intelligent agency today building synthetic molecular motors, bioengineered proteins, etc. In my opinion, it is wrong to think that only a non-teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Science based on methodological naturalism does not have exclusive rights to this type of thinking nor is one obligated to abandon observation, hypothesis-making, testing, etc. because they are skeptical of non-teleological origin explanations.<<
James R>>Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works.<<
Jack>>I agree that methodological naturalism has been fruitful, but by far, most of that fruit deals with how things work rather than how things came to be. For example, MN has been very fruitful in telling us about how mitosis works, but it bears little or no fruit in telling us about how mitosis came to be. And that it bears fruit in one area is no reason to think it will bear fruit in the other area.
Why would I say this? Simply because if things were designed through intelligent intervention, MN would be expected to bear fruit. Why do I say this? I have no doubt that my mechanic can explain how my car works without invoking little intelligent gremlins to explain the conversion of the potential energy in gasoline into the kinetic energy of those spinning wheels. But if my mechanic wants to explain the origin of my car without reference to intelligent agents, he may be able to come up with some interesting just so stories, but they would all be inaccurate. Thus, the success of MN doesn't seem all that relevant to the questions that interest me. I am not opposed to MN; I only oppose those who insist it's the only rational way to investigate the origin of things in the natural world.<<
James R>>Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.<<
Jack>>Well, by the same token how has the non-teleological approach fared in tackling these issues? How did a blind watchmaker create DNA? The first cell? The first human? Non-teleologists frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about blind watchmaking. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle intelligent design explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only blind watchmaker-based alternatives remain. <<
James R>> In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand.<<
Jack>>Scientists often detect unobservable entities--quarks, forces, fields, the big bang-from their observable effects. Darwinists themselves postulate unobservable "transitional" organisms and allegedly creative processes that occur too slowly (or too quickly) to be observed.
The inference to design involves an extrapolation from a known mechanism, namely, the intervention of a free and rational mind that imposes boundaries on natural law and chance.. Yet it is true that one must propose the existence of a hypothetical intelligent entity. As for non-teleological extrapolations, they too involve lots of hypes (hypothetical posited entities). A necessary condition for the blind watchmaker hypothesis is the existence of free-living bacteria-like cellular life forms without DNA, without peptodoglycan cell walls, and with F-ATPases. Such entities are unseen, hypothetical, and postulated to exist (clearly hypes).
Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's head."
Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.<<
James R>> Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?<<
This is kind of silly. How does one disprove the existence of a blind watchmaker? Do teleologists have to prove the impossible? No. Teleologists need only show that teleology does work to help us understand the biological world. And not only in the molecular/cellular sciences, but also with evolution itself. It doesn't have to disprove a non-teleological interpretation. It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some form of pay-off.
The issue here is about what should be the appropriate core epistemology of biology itself. Methodological naturalism has been a productive assumption because it encourages the continuation of inquiry. MN ceases to be a productive assumption, however, when it stifles inquiry about very real possibilities. To the extent that ID broadens the range of investigation, it may prove to be valuable and certainly cannot be harmful. ID could only be harmful to the extent that it stifles inquiry, and quite frankly, I don’t see any danger of that at this point. To use the voluntary adoption of MN by the science of evolutionary biologists as reason to not broaden the range of investigation loses sight of the reason for this adoption in the first place: to encourage inquiry.
In feeling, as I do, that the topic of non-supernatural intelligent design is deserving of its own thread, one outside of this one where many more people can learn of its existence, I have created a thread Here (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/s155636807b4334c226341cb8bc6b682c/showthread.php?postid=149793#post149793).
I also think that divorcing the current ID discussion from the supernatural contexts of this thread's title and prior discussings might also afford Warren, and others, relief from our (...my... :rolleyes: ) frequently militant a-supernatural inclinations and a better addressing of both his premise and his aims.
Here (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/s155636807b4334c226341cb8bc6b682c/showthread.php?postid=149793#post149793).
Mr.G >>In feeling, as I do, that the topic of non-supernatural intelligent design is deserving of its own thread, one outside of this one where many more people can learn of its existence, I have created a thread Here.
I also think that divorcing the current ID discussion from the supernatural contexts of this thread's title and prior discussings might also afford Warren, and others, relief from our (...my... ) frequently militant a-supernatural inclinations and a better addressing of both his premise and his aims.<<
Warren>> Might be a good idea but remember when I started posting to this thread I asked how you guys defined creationism and the consensus seemed to be that any hypothesis that posited anything other than non-intelligent processes for the origin and development of life was creationism. That's why I stuck with this thread to debunk that line of reasoning. We can change the thread but the same old arguments that ID is creationism and/or ID appeals to the supernatural are likely to follow.<<
....the consensus seemed to be that any hypothesis that posited anything other than non-intelligent processes for the origin and development of life was creationism....
While I personally think that supernaturalistic models of origins of the universe and of life require additional complexity unneeded by naturalistic models, and therefore are less likely to be true (whether or not either type of model is actually the true one), I still would like to explore further what I believe you've said is your actual premise: an intelligent organizing force model less complex than a supernatural deity-based model but still more complex than a strictly naturalistic model.
I think that whether or not you and others can make a convincing case for such a model, the narrowing of the focus in the other thread would be good mental excercise for us all because it would require that we all deal with your premise based on its merits, or lack thereof, and not just dismiss it out-of-hand as simply being more creationist, bible-thumping psychobabble.
In other words, if it is intended to be presented as a naturalistic model and not a supernaturalistic model, than lets give it a venue for naturalistic vetting and let's leave our repsective supernatural/a-supernatural filters at the door.
Clockwood
09-15-02, 02:29 PM
Things that can not be proven or disproven by their very nature have no place in science. Why bother?
CounslerCoffee
12-14-02, 07:37 PM
Why dont we just teach both and let the kids make up their minds? If not that then you could just have the parents teach their kids creationism/science.
Xevious
12-15-02, 12:39 AM
This is all kind of funny. The last time that this debate was going on was over the big bang, since that theorys originator was a Catholic priest. The scientific community outright rejected "The Big Bang" to begin with as an attempt to place the book of Genesis in science. Isn't it funny how creationism thought, as it was once considered, is currently the backbone of cosmology?
James R
12-15-02, 05:53 AM
<i>Why dont we just teach both and let the kids make up their minds? If not that then you could just have the parents teach their kids creationism/science.</i>
Because teaching time is limited in schools. We don't have time to consider every crackpot theory in science classes. We don't teach creationism for exactly the same reason we don't teach the flat earth theory and Aristotle's theory of the Four Elements.
pumpkinsaren'torange
12-15-02, 03:30 PM
"doesn't belong" ?? sorry...it's ALREADY an integral part in Genesis.
CounslerCoffee
12-15-02, 05:47 PM
Because teaching time is limited in schools. We don't have time to consider every crackpot theory in science classes. We don't teach creationism for exactly the same reason we don't teach the flat earth theory and Aristotle's theory of the Four Elements.
In a science class? I was talking about a humanities class, or a history class, something like that.
Clockwood
12-16-02, 12:07 AM
As long as they go through a whole list of religigous and philosophical stuff, with no slant that one is right, its ok by me to have it in a class. But I mean EVERYTHING. Taoism, Christianity, Sunni Muslim, Shii muslim, buddism, Nordic, moche, etc... and all expressed equally
spuriousmonkey
12-16-02, 02:44 AM
sorry...didn't read all the posts..i might say something that has been said before:
does creationism belong in science class:
NO,
the simplist reason for not teaching creationism in science class is that creationism is not taking seriously by science (for obvious reasons). Why teach something in science class when you will never hear from it again when you actually start doing science.
Now...let us have a look at the opposite problem:
Does evolution belong in religion/philosophy class?
YES,
since no other scientific theory ever had such a profound influence on the mindset of people and hence religion and philosophy.
Xevious
12-16-02, 09:51 AM
Hmmm, so evolution should get equal time in religion's forum, but religion should not get equal time in science's forum. At least you can now admit that science is religion. Do you want to abadon the concensus that Religion and Science are in seperate realms, or are you ready to declare Jihad?
spuriousmonkey
12-16-02, 10:26 AM
you failed to see that i said that this particular theory has influenced human thought (on for instance religion) to such a degree that this effect should be tought in philosophy/religion class..
that's different from calling science religion. Science broke away from religion some time ago.
gallileo took the earth out of the center of the universe..
darwin took god out of life...
both were quite revolutionary for thoughts on religion, hence they impacted religion, hence they should be tought in religion class
seang200
12-29-02, 04:35 PM
I just have to say that after reading a bit of this post I have come to the conclusion that the topic was poorly presented and poorly criticized. I will post some thoughtful excerpts that may help set some definitions for further – fruitful – discussion. This means not merely saying something is not science or scientific, but actually defining what science is. This will cut down on the ad hominum attacks and deal with the argument more that the arguer or name calling.
I would love to debate these issues with you, but first we must get some terms straight. I will do so by excerpting a mock conversation from the jr. high level book, What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution. After you give me the okay on these definitions, we will have a more fruitful discussion about the evidences for creation. Until then I highly recommend you investigate a site alongside your TalkOrigins investigations. It is a site put together by doctorate holding scientists, professors and the like… enjoy ( http://www.trueorigins.org/index.htm ) Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.
Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.
Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?”
Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?
Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. “Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words.
Evolutionist: Wagon words?
Creationist:Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].
Evolutionist: How do you mean?
Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.
Evolutionist: You mean I win already?
Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”
Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?
Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the sponatanious appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).
Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.
Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?This Term… will mean this.
Creation or Creation-science
The belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence.
Intelligent Design or Design Theory
The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation.
Darwinism
The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent).
Micro-evolution
Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.
Macro-evolution
Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. [species and classes are a hot – debatable – topic.]
Common Descent
The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor[s].
platzapS
01-01-03, 05:59 PM
Go to christianforums.com. It's easy to become a member, and, being run by Christians, they probably don't spam you when you put your email address. anywho, go to "Open Debate and Discussion" for Christians and Nonchristians, then "Science, Creation, and Evolution". It's actually visited mostly by evolutionists, both theistic and atheistic. If you want to really prove your point to people, go to answersingenesis--oh wait, they're too afraid to have a message board.
Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Why dont we just teach both and let the kids make up their minds? If not that then you could just have the parents teach their kids creationism/science.
Because creationism is NOT science?
Miguelio
01-04-03, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Now is your chance. Convince me otherwise if you can, and I will refute them. Creationism does NOT belong in science classrooms no matter WHAT. I dare you.
Why don't you try to convince everyone that a blind evolution trough natural selection is science based on empirical evidence! Maybe you can be refuted to.
avatar...i've never felt the need for science either. yet i'm as sure that it has benefited me as much as god has benefited you.
i am just so amazed by that statement
written and posted as it was on the internet
like the computer that it was typed on
the phone network it was distributed through
the electrical network that runs both
no need for science indeed
i feel fully justified in saying
BAH HUMBUG
notPresidentAndrew
01-14-03, 10:29 AM
Zero, I know you asked to debate Creationism several months ago, and I don't even know if you are still at this forum, but if you would like to debate there are plenty of people at www.christianforums.com who will debate with you. Go to the "Open Discussion and Debate," then go to the "Science, Creationism, and Evolution," to debate long and hard with Creationists.
Creationism is not science. Science works by the scientific method, creationism does not.
notPresidentAndrew
01-14-03, 11:23 AM
Here is a more direct link: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/70.html
Warning! Most of the Creationists over there have absolutely no understanding of science, especially Hector Medina.
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Here is a more direct link: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/70.html
Warning! Most of the Creationists over there have absolutely no understanding of science, especially Hector Medina.
Yep, your completely right. Some times when I'm reading some of the posts over there I just want to :bang head against walk:
notPresidentAndrew
01-15-03, 12:03 AM
Nice to see you here, seesaw. They banned my notMichaelJackson, BlueSubmarine, and Scottster accounts, otherwise I'd talk to you at CF.
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Nice to see you here, seesaw. They banned my notMichaelJackson, BlueSubmarine, and Scottster accounts, otherwise I'd talk to you at CF.
I kind of thought it was you. Well they ban a lot over there it's like if you say something they don't like they ban you. Do you still post at Infidels?
notPresidentAndrew
01-15-03, 12:13 AM
Not really. I'm not an atheist so there really isn't any reason for me to post there. I'm here because I'm a science major.
Stupid CF and their "no free email account" policy. If it weren't for that rule I could create as many accounts as I pleased.
Isn't Hector a kick? That Creationist with the green cartoon character avatar is almost as bad as Medina.
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Not really. I'm not an atheist so there really isn't any reason for me to post there. I'm here because I'm a science major.
Stupid CF and their "no free email account" policy. If it weren't for that rule I could create as many accounts as I pleased.
Isn't Hector a kick? That Creationist with the green cartoon character avatar is almost as bad as Medina.
Ahh.. I have been here for a while but I don't post much. I have kind of stoped posting on all forums i'm starting to get a little bored with them mostly I stay on IRC.
notPresidentAndrew
01-15-03, 12:22 AM
Bored at which forum? What is IRC?
notPresidentAndrew
01-15-03, 12:26 AM
By the way, seesaw, I love some of you avatars at CF! The guy with the solar system around his head (Hawking?) was great! I'm not sure about the monkey mask though...
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Bored at which forum? What is IRC?
I'm getting bored with posting on all forums there but I would have to say that CF and www.physicsforums.com is getting really boring there isn't really anything new ever talked about. IRC is an Internet Relay Chat Network. If you are using windows you can download a client at www.mirc.com. I mostly stay in the physics, and math channels on EFnet. You can learn all about mirc and IRC at www.mirc.com.
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
By the way, seesaw, I love some of you avatars at CF! The guy with the solar system around his head (Hawking?) was great! I'm not sure about the monkey mask though...
LOL thanks. I like the Hawking one also. Dang I thought the monkey mask one was cool heh :)
twelveplanets
01-20-03, 06:35 PM
What were you tought about the historical record of our planet?
I would recomend an author who has spent his life contemplating this subject.
Zecharia Sitchin.
technoextreme
01-22-03, 08:40 PM
I'm getting a whee bit off topic but....
For example, the theory of relativity. If we saw something moving faster than the speed of light, if we were able to verify that speed, then the whole theory of relativity would come crashing down. It is disprovable, if you only have the evidence.
Errr I just read an article that it's possible to get something faster than the speed of law and not violate any laws.
42. Physics Beyond the Speed of Light
According to relativity, communicating faster than light is impossible: Your message would arrive before it was sent. So two Canadian physicists raised some eyebrows in January when they announced they had created a signal that traveled at nearly four times the speed of light.
Alain Haché, a physicist at the University of Moncton in New Brunswick, Canada, transmitted a radio-frequency pulse through a 500-foot cable made of alternating wire segments with different levels of impedance—a measure of resistance to electric current. As the pulse crossed into each segment, some of its wave components reflected backward and slowed down, while other parts reflected forward and sped up. The leading edge of the pulse kept getting faster, eventually attaining super-luminal speed.
No laws of physics were broken, says Haché: "The pulse is highly distorted, so the peak of the pulse arrives faster than the speed of light. But since most of the pulse's energy is absorbed by the cable, the entire pulse velocity never exceeds that of light." The research could nonetheless get the world moving more quickly. Signals through today's ubiquitous coaxial cables move at about two-thirds the speed of light. Haché's approach might bump them all the way up to the limit of normal physics.
— Jeffrey Winters
Aslo don't forget about tachyons. They could exisist if we can find them.
spuriousmonkey
01-23-03, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by technoextreme
They could exisist if we can find them.
this sentence probably sums up the current state of the theoretical field of physics
im certainly not an expert in this field
but as far as i understood the c limit problem
a massless particle shouldnt have a problem going faster than the speed of light as it is only the infinitely large amount of energy require to go past it(due to the infinately increasing mass)
and from what ive read about tachyons-they go faster than the speed of light but have the same problem as they drop down to it-ie the speed of light is as LOW as they can go and would need an infinite amout of energy to get that slow
is this right??
and i havent been able to find anything about `proving' tachions existence -lots of theory type stuff but so far not actuallly detected
ALLTHEORIES
01-30-03, 11:11 AM
Creation is just as good of a theory as evolution. They both have evidence that supports the theories but both have visual evidence which some faithless people need.
Evolution: There is no explanation to how the first of the very first dirt particles even formed. How was the matter created? Sure eventually in the evolution theory you might try to explain that the sand drew together heated up then exploded or whatever but there is nothing to show how the first matter was created.
Creation: we really on God who you cannot physically see as result of human relationship withering do to our lack of faith ect. In Genisis God talked with Adam, and Moses occasionally talked with God in forms and then he sent his son Jesus to talk to us and now its all in the form of prayer.
Both have flaws in the physical evidence category but both are theories until proven. The only thing is if God proves right then those that dont believe will pay a price. If evolution is right then we go into the dirt and continue leading a meaningless life
ALLTHEORIES
01-30-03, 11:18 AM
Arent all speculations on dating animals humans ect based on evolution. If evolution is wrong the earth could very likely be 6000 years old. Also there is a constitutional right to teach any form of the science of the earth's begining as long as it brings insite to the learning of the children and allows them to grasp scientific understanding. Maybe 1987 court case in state maybe, then 7 years earlier federally. Dates may be wrong but cases did happen. So until there is a law I can teach students creation and the ACLU has nada.
James R
01-31-03, 01:32 AM
ALLTHEORIES:
Creation is just as good of a theory as evolution. They both have evidence that supports the theories but both have visual evidence which some faithless people need.
No. Creation is not as good a theory as evolution for explaining the diversity of life we see today. It is based on dogma, and the evidence presented by its adherents has been shown over and over again to be false. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution continues to accumulate, so that by now the theory is accepted by virtually every professional biologist.
Evolution: There is no explanation to how the first of the very first dirt particles even formed. How was the matter created?
That is a question which the theory of evolution does not even attempt to answer. You need to look at physical theories to answer that one (e.g. the big bang theory).
Both have flaws in the physical evidence category but both are theories until proven.
What are the flaws of evolution in the physical evidence category?
If evolution is right then we go into the dirt and continue leading a meaningless life.
No, that's wrong. Evolution doesn't mean a meaningless life.
Arent all speculations on dating animals humans ect based on evolution.
No. There are about 20 different, independent dating methods I could name, and not one of them relies on the theory of evolution.
If evolution is wrong the earth could very likely be 6000 years old.
No. Geological evidence tells us that the earth is, at the very least, millions of years old.
Also there is a constitutional right to teach any form of the science of the earth's begining as long as it brings insite to the learning of the children and allows them to grasp scientific understanding.
Which section of the constitution would that be?
spuriousmonkey
01-31-03, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by ALLTHEORIES
Creation is just as good of a theory as evolution. They both have evidence that supports the theories but both have visual evidence which some faithless people need.
i shall add one important thing to James his remark:
creation is not a scientific theory, because it doen't provoke any scientific questions.
JOHANNsebastianBACH
02-28-03, 06:28 AM
Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
I am not a creationist, but 6 days relative to the creator could be 15 billion years relative to us.
but really, how hard is it to accept (if you are a creationist) that the big bang is the spark of creation and evolution (15 billion years to us) is 6 days to god.
More on big bang: if heaven exists and god exists, obviously they don’t exist in our cosmos because that would suggest that god created himself and heaven. God must exist in a completely realm. Before man was created time didn’t exist relative to man, but only to god. When man was created, the earth had already existed for 6 days relative to god, which could be 15 billion years to man. Please open your mind a little (Christians), I know you aren’t used to using your imagination because you think everything you need to know is in the bible. But the bible does not explain relativity, so (time) could be relatively different through out the bible.
spuriousmonkey
02-28-03, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by JOHANNsebastianBACH
I am not a creationist, but 6 days relitive to the creater could be 15 billion years relitive to us.
but really, how hard is it to accept (if you are a creationist) that the big bang is the spark of creation and evolution (15 billion years to us) is 6 days to god.
dunno...it just sounds superfluous
JOHANNsebastianBACH
02-28-03, 06:51 AM
dunno...it just sounds superfluous
here is the group that christions fall into
Aliens
bigfoot
jesus christ
elvis prestly is still alive
gohsts
this does not mean i dont believe these things exist, it just shows the christions that they fall into the group of people that are concidered by society to be wackows
mormons are the most humorest religion though, kind of like canadians.
Sorry to butt in so late, and I haven't read all the posts but...
Just wanted to say that while it seems inarguable that Creationism in its Christian form is not a scientific hypothesis this does not in itself make it false. Perhaps someone may one day reframe Creationism in a form that makes specific predictions about the natural world. I hasten to add that I am not a Creationist in the Christian sense.
The trouble with the science/religion debate is that it can fool us into forgetting that they may both have various degrees of truth and falsity within them. For example because one only gets the chance to vote Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative, it is easy to forget that there are an infinity of alternative political approaches, (a fact politicians are desperate to make us forget), some of which are distinct from either of them, and some of which contain elements of both.
SwedishFish
03-09-03, 01:13 AM
this reminds me of a very very small section in the gen. bio book i tutor from. it lists possible unproven origins of life: organic evolution, primitive cells from other planets (yet doesn't suppose how they came about on the other planets) or divine origin (does not limit to judeo-christian god). otherwise it's a fantastic book but it makes one wonder.
spuriousmonkey
03-10-03, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Canute
Sorry to butt in so late, and I haven't read all the posts but...
Just wanted to say that while it seems inarguable that Creationism in its Christian form is not a scientific hypothesis this does not in itself make it false. Perhaps someone may one day reframe Creationism in a form that makes specific predictions about the natural world. I hasten to add that I am not a Creationist in the Christian sense.
The trouble with the science/religion debate is that it can fool us into forgetting that they may both have various degrees of truth and falsity within them. For example because one only gets the chance to vote Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative, it is easy to forget that there are an infinity of alternative political approaches, (a fact politicians are desperate to make us forget), some of which are distinct from either of them, and some of which contain elements of both.
the problem with creationism is that it isn't a scientific theory since it doesn't pose any scientific questions.
it is just there because people can't accept that they are an integral part of nature, instead of some special divine creation.
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the problem with creationism is that it isn't a scientific theory since it doesn't pose any scientific questions.
it is just there because people can't accept that they are an integral part of nature, instead of some special divine creation.
Agree with the first sentence, although that might change, but the second is only sometimes true.
spuriousmonkey
03-10-03, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Canute
Agree with the first sentence, although that might change, but the second is only sometimes true.
yep...sometimes it is true, sometimes it is true...uhh...why would you want to believe in creationism other than because you think humans are a special creation, king of the hill, the top species etc.?
I can't think of any reason at the moment. Are there other reasons to believe in creationism?
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I can't think of any reason at the moment. Are there other reasons to believe in creationism? WEll the mountains of proof of course. It's written in the Bible... and... um...
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yep...sometimes it is true, sometimes it is true...uhh...why would you want to believe in creationism other than because you think humans are a special creation, king of the hill, the top species etc.?
I can't think of any reason at the moment. Are there other reasons to believe in creationism?
The trouble is that we have polarised this argument into Christian Creationism versus post-Christian science. It is more interesting than that. I agree that Creationism as I think you define it makes no sense. But there are other ways of looking at it . (Sorry got to rush off without expanding). I'll try to get back on this).
3finger
03-13-03, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by harrykarry
should creationism be taught in the science class?
YES!!!
here's one reason. truth.
maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school.
To teach something based solely on it being popular belief sounds like a great way stunt any future learning. The basis of religion is faith. Dare i call it BLIND FAITH....as it is well regarded as not able to be proven false, as 2000 years of good arguments for why religion has no basis in fact has helped believers come up with some "divine-loophoile" for everything.
There is a translation of the "holy word" to defend every possible scenerio. This is why you will find incredible similarities between the definitions of faith, and gullibility. To believe wholeheartedly with need for tangible evidence or substantial proof.
Religion is a society controll system not a spec of science involved. I dont recall learning the "..let there be..." theory in physics. This is because there is no reason to research something so incredibly fairy tale.
Religion belongs in politics classes if anywhere associated with education at all. I dont personally believe it does belond anywhere in a school, since it is a creation that thrives best where there isn't excessive education. Ignorance is fuel for its fire. I am not saying that to believe makes one ignorant....only that it can spread fastest when higher intellect isnt around to question it. The 75% number above seems pretty foolish to me either way, as it is your "tradition"...or perpetuated ignorance that keeps that number statistically possible. Not half of that number attends the normal services that are associated with one's only chance for eternal happiness. This may be partly due to the fact that IQ's have steadily risen as the centuries pass.
Again , Religion is a social control system...one that weakens every year, as the concept of eternal damnation no longer merits behaving "like a good christian"
Religion doesnt belong in a science class, nor in any school that strives to EDUCATE.
(maybe in a fictional liturature class.)
Its a great read with lots of fun twists!:bugeye:
3finger
03-13-03, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the problem with creationism is that it isn't a scientific theory since it doesn't pose any scientific questions.
it is just there because people can't accept that they are an integral part of nature, instead of some special divine creation.
This is an excellent point. If people where to accept this fact, that
behavior control system which religion is would fail. Our action would lose their "divine" meaning to know we are just a ripple, and it seems pretty likely judging from the length of the total timeline of evolution that we are not the final stage of it.
OMG...that would mean, running over those people crossing the street might not really be the end of an orderly universe?...
"thank god for eternal damnation!!!"..
keeps them crossing safely.
...just a social control system, and profitable business. Preists are one of the few people with a roof over there heads, and food in there stomachs that dont actual produce anything tangible, or provide a needed service.
I was raised catholic, did all the sacraments...etc. But damn this brain for recognizing what is manmade...not divine
Dr Lou Natic
03-14-03, 01:33 AM
Excellent post 3finger
Hey guys, have I been here long enough to "welcome" someone to sciforums?
Aaah fuck it,
3finger, welcome to sciforums!:)
hey... that made me feel like a big man:cool:
Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
John G. West, Jr.
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.
Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.
The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.
4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.
Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.
3finger - If you think faith is such a bad thing read some Popper, who makes the perfectly obvious point that we depend on faith for everything we believe we know. That doesn't make Creationism right, but it's not faith that's the problem. To dispense with faith is to dispense with knowledge.
Your second post makies the common mistake of assuming that deists make up God to make themselves more important. Certainly the Christian God bestows on humanity a central place in the cosmos if one assumes He exists. You could understand it if He was invented by people who otherwise found no meaning in their lives. But there are always two meanings to things.
It is equally undertstandable that people who know that they are clearly nothing but a totally insignificant being would naturally believe that there was something much greater than themselves in the world, for how else could they be ‘insignificant’ except by comparison. Thus it is their very humbleness that gives rise to their idea of God, and their respect for what ‘He’, whoever you take ‘He’ to be in this case, created. It could be said that this attribute of God, that He makes us seem so unimportant, is precisely what makes self-important physicalists avoid the idea.
Thus anyone who is of the general opinion that our ancestors created God for the sake of their own self-importance, or who think that people deny physicalism simply because they are afraid of becoming unimportant, are wrong. Or at least as likely to be wrong as right, which is much the same thing. The only evidence for it is that it is possibly true.
Warren - However Intelligent Design (by which I take it you mean Planned Intelligent Design) and (intentional) Christian Creationism are not the only ways in which creation and design might be hypothesised as being due to consciousness.
It might be unintelligently designed and unintentionaly created, much like modern society for instance, which is clearly designed and created by intelligence but which one could argue is of a most unintelligent design and is mostly quite unintended.
Originally posted by Zero
Oh. Which forum site can I go to do battle?
try www.beliefnet.com
click on discussions.
Well, language is a bitch. Has it ever crossed your mind that creationism and evolution might mean the same thing in the past? The universe might very well be the christian God. Couldn't the system be 'sentient enough?
Christianity was taken to be a form of philosophy back then until the Romans were involved, it wasn't really a commercialised religion back then. We should go back to the beginning if we are to understand it.
Besides, in Buddism, nirvana is gained through a leap in understanding. Most people fail to attain true nirvana throughout their entire lives. Attaining nirvana is seen as the same as entering heaven. Losing nirvana is to been seen as descending into hell(the current world). So the christian model isn't exactly wrong. eg. most christians will not enter the kingdom of heaven
I'm not too sure, but shouldn't a model like Godel's theorm present a case where it's possible for scientific truths (expressions) being not fully able to comprehend the entire system?
I'm a forum virgin, so please be gentle.:)
SwedishFish
03-30-03, 12:36 PM
one of the most idiotic arguments against the "theory" of evolution is people claiming it is only a "theory". i learned scientific theory as meaning something totally different from theory as entered in the dictionary; consistently supported by tons upon tons of research and never disproven. in other words: truth. in undergrad, they told us that "theory" confused lay people so we now call it a "model" instead.
Mesa - Quite agree.
Swedish fish - Don't believe everything they tell you about 'lay' people in 'undergrad'. Evolutionary theory is an incomplete model, one that models biological entities as mindless machines, an assumption which contradicts all the non-scientific evidence. Obviously there is a lot of truth in it, but it begs as many questions as it answers.
SwedishFish
03-30-03, 04:22 PM
non-scientific evidence? hahahahaha. i'll give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence.
SwedishFish
03-30-03, 04:24 PM
evolution is suuuuch a simple concept that it blows my mind when people 1. cannot understand it, 2. disagree with it. it's common sense kids. people use examples that are completely unrelated to evolution in any way in an attempt to refute it.
Originally posted by SwedishFish
evolution is suuuuch a simple concept that it blows my mind when people 1. cannot understand it, 2. disagree with it. it's common sense kids. people use examples that are completely unrelated to evolution in any way in an attempt to refute it.
Whoah there. Who are you talking about exactly. I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said that evolutionary theory does not take into account the non-scientific evidence. In other words it ignores the possible impact of consciousness on behaviour.
When science manges to prove that it doesn't have one then fine. But until they do, and while consciousness is still a complete mystery to science and scientific philosphers, then current mainstream evolutionary theory may turn out to be only half the story.
Unfortunately for as long as science does not accept the subjective as being scientific evidence then, as I say, it can do little but hope that it doesn't.
You comment that you'll "give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence." I would say that your concepts of magic beans ARE the non-scientific evidence.
SwedishFish
03-30-03, 10:02 PM
no i wasn't talking about you. "non-believers" of evolution in general.
consciousness of behavior is covered in psychology, sparky. i hear rumor that it is a science.
science is more subjective than you think. it is limited by the researchers themselves. somebody in another forum (spuriousmonkey maybe?) said: "Maybe you should go and read a bible or something, because if you want definite answers you shouldn't ask science."
scientific evidence is subjective enough. your non-scientific evidence just goes beyond worthless.
Originally posted by SwedishFish
no i wasn't talking about you. "non-believers" of evolution in general.
consciousness of behavior is covered in psychology, sparky. i hear rumor that it is a science.
science is more subjective than you think. it is limited by the researchers themselves. somebody in another forum (spuriousmonkey maybe?) said: "Maybe you should go and read a bible or something, because if you want definite answers you shouldn't ask science."
scientific evidence is subjective enough. your non-scientific evidence just goes beyond worthless.
It really depresses me when people form their beliefs in the absence of logic or evidence, and then get evangelical about them. I recommend a good dose of metaphysics.
SwedishFish
03-31-03, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Canute
It really depresses me when people form their beliefs in the absence of logic or evidence
erm, that's exactly what i was thinking :bugeye:
Originally posted by SwedishFish
erm, that's exactly what i was thinking :bugeye:
I know.
5th Element
05-09-03, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by harrykarry
should creationism be taught in the science class?
YES!!!
here's one reason. truth.
maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....
when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.
here's another reason. tradition.
you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...
no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.
personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.
It's shit like this that make me laugh. So are you a "religous scientist"?
5th Element
05-09-03, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Damonmordre
I love this I have never posted here before but I figure I will give food for thought in the realm of creationism and push you to think farther than man's natural tendency to known what we don't. Ok first in regards to a "religion" (disgusting word) you have two here that are disputed. If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion. I being human have been taught that I must have faith in a big bang theory that offsets natures natural tendency to decay and believe that it will improve. Take humans for example disease gets worse our bodies fall apart as we get older and the only thing that appears to improve is our knowledge. I would have an easier time believeing in a creation that is slowly imploding because of nature's natural tendency toward decay, than to believe that our universe is improving itself by stars collapsing and and colliding with other stars.
if that's what you think, well........gooooooood.
See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.
If science is religion, it would be called science. but if you must think that way well.........gooooooooood.
It is funny because take creationism and fold it into God creating a race of humans that used 100% of their brain and they decided they didn't want to serve God because they could be Gods themselves. So being intelligent as God appears he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God. Seeing there that God gave us a choice.
actually some of us use far less, apparently.........
If you look at the world and see the differences in our landscapes and other unexplainable issues. One large such unexplainable land formation would be all of South America. It looks like and even scientific evidence suggest that that continent at one time boasted a some 50 million people. Yet in all our knowledge something major and aside from the meteor killing the dinosaurs caused a whole civilization from disappearing. There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.
humans weren't around during that meteor collision. stop acting like you know science.
If you read the beginning of the bible you will notice it took God six days to create earth and man and woman. Then it says that God on the fifth day created Adam and Eve. My last food of thought for you: why create man and woman and then state that you created Adam and Eve.
?lol?
Yes I am a christian I don't question Gods plans but enjoy entertaining interesting thoughts of what he did and will do. I have experienced his spirit and witnessed unbelievable things. I also enjoy what science does in this life because it explains his simple plan and idea. Solar system is a large model of and Atom
the solar system sure seems like a large model of an atom huh? lol. I have never seen this much misinformation. Is it lack of education? is it lack of intelligence? is it lack of that full 10% of the brain?
P.S. the theory is that we use 3-5%. not 10% lolz
Enjoy and butcher if you like. :D
5th Element
05-09-03, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Damonmordre
I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.
Yes that would be the best term scientology and yes if they want a separation of church and state then science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it. I do like the teaching of how certain things operate. Thank you Fadingcaptain for pointing things out so I could clarify myself. Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is. That better :)
Define what a scientific theory is please.
Well here is a small answer to the other thing about proof for the 10%. I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited in because we were again made exactly after the image of God and he can see the past, present, and future. He also is not lacking on the learning level we are because he is able to do all math, all variables, and develope the best strategies for correct his misjudgements or his own flaws. We as humans lack in one area but are better in some and I feel that we should be good in all areas such as God. The only thing is our mind is limited because our memory can't be completely used. That is the best I can do because even science is still trying to understand the mind and to give a scientific answer for this when even science hasn't come up with one is just a tad bit difficult :p
I can't give a scientific answer because you don't understand science's core.
With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared. That would be like a 5 Houston cities dissappearing with no bodies or buildings being there anymore.
where did you learn about this suppose 50 million? church?
Well I hope I gave a better explanation for my theories.
I always invite criticism because it helps refine my thinking
Thank you Fading
5th Element
05-09-03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Warren
Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?
That's a silly question. Really, if you don't know what science is, go look it up.
5th Element
05-09-03, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by harrykarry
And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).
evolutionist theory is based on data right? (wether theorized or proven) the worship of data (with or without physical proof) is a religion. endorsing a belief that the physical; the rocks, the stars, the trees, even man are above god... somehow smarter.... somehow omnipotent in and of themselves, self-created and then mutated over time until intelligence as we know it (jerry springer) slowly emerges.
yes. evolution is a religion. the fact that evolutionists hide behind data and worship it as their god...is a religion... it's even very narrow minded as religions often are...
i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.
the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....
kindof like any liberal program that wants to emphasize how rediculous christianity is.... show an evangelist with a bad hairdoo...
ok at this point i have to ask, is it that hard for you to reason without putting statements into other ppl's throats? is it that hard for you not to put words into other ppl's mouths? where is the credit in saying that scientist worship data? science is tool, man is a tool maker. some ppl like to worship instead of making tools, fine.
Your arguements and accusations are as lousy as me saying that you worship your computer because you're using it to accomplish certain things.
5th Element
05-09-03, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Xevious
Is it better for humans to forget everything about religion or science?"
Religion and Science have similarities and differences which give each of them differnt roles in society. Religion works on building human community and laying down ethical foundations. These are things which science is quite candidly not qualified to handle, no matter how you argue it. Science works logically through the methods True and True is True, or True and False is False. Many things in human morals and ethics are simply not designed simply in black and white terms. It's ironic, that if one tries to apply logic to moral arguments, one finds that logic can support ANY argument as long as one has the facts to back it up. This fallability ot Logic is one lost to many people. In theory, one can justify genocide through the premice of the world being overpopulated. You and I both know that the thought of Genocide is highly questionable to most people, but scientifically, IF one can prove an overpopulation burdon, one can justify the genocide as a logical solution.
What you have their is an example of scientific intellectualism spinning out of control without moral guidence. Adolph Hitler is a wonderful example. Hitler was in every way, in intellectual man. He painted artworks, and his art is still considered to be of good quality by many artisans. He collected ancient artifacts and had a very high interest in archaeology and ancient civilizations. He played a musical insturment. He founded Germany's Autobaun and he came up with the 1st prototype design for the Volkswagon Beetle. No matter how you slice it, Hitler was a VERY intelligent intellectual. He was a billiant tactician in World War II - he took out France, which at the time had the worlds best Army. He nearly captured Moscow, deep in Russian territory. With Italy at his side, Europe fell in a very short amount of time. But, his morals were highly questionable. His thinking spun out of control, and he wiped out almost 1/5 of the worlds Jewish population to say nothing of the hundreds in France, Russia, Poland, and many other countries.
What scares me is that if one reads his autobiography, he was able to find logical justifications for much of his beliefs. You might laugh at me, but it's true.
In the end, when civalizations collapse and people rebuild, Religion always comes out on top because Science is not qualified to build human community. If it was, the Greeks would have rebuilt on a scientifice foundation - and they were probably the only civalization his history in which science ran so far through their core. If they couldn't do it, NO ONE could do it.
I am not taking an opinion which is "better" because both are very important in society. I am just saying that Science cannot and will not ever take Religion's function in society over.
You could have just said, "sorry but if I answer your question, then I will have to contradict myself"
5th Element
05-09-03, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Xevious
This is all kind of funny. The last time that this debate was going on was over the big bang, since that theorys originator was a Catholic priest. The scientific community outright rejected "The Big Bang" to begin with as an attempt to place the book of Genesis in science. Isn't it funny how creationism thought, as it was once considered, is currently the backbone of cosmology?
"The Big Bang" theory's originator was a catholic priest????Did somebody lie to you?
5th Element
05-09-03, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Xevious
Hmmm, so evolution should get equal time in religion's forum, but religion should not get equal time in science's forum. At least you can now admit that science is religion. Do you want to abadon the concensus that Religion and Science are in seperate realms, or are you ready to declare Jihad?
If science is a religion as you propose then you better hope we don't declare jihad. Obviously someone wouldn't certainly lose in 6 days.
you know what? that's a great idea actually. or i say, we should just completely have seperate nations. a scientific nation and a religious nation. we'll see then how things progress.
5th Element
05-09-03, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by ALLTHEORIES
Arent all speculations on dating animals humans ect based on evolution. If evolution is wrong the earth could very likely be 6000 years old. Also there is a constitutional right to teach any form of the science of the earth's begining as long as it brings insite to the learning of the children and allows them to grasp scientific understanding. Maybe 1987 court case in state maybe, then 7 years earlier federally. Dates may be wrong but cases did happen. So until there is a law I can teach students creation and the ACLU has nada.
Does anyone else find the first 2 sentences especially hilarious?
Thantos
05-09-03, 11:31 PM
ok, I am going to make statements that have absolutly no pith once so ever(I think), I just want to see the statements against them(oh, and I am a little rusty on evolution so, if you could identify a site that explains exactly what is meant(such as are mutations counted even though it is an immediate change(not entirely what I am trying to ask, but I lack the vocabulary in which to communicate the question effectively), and what is the genetic variation percantage that defines a new species?). I am also intereseted in a good creationism defination(most of the evolution and creationism theories(they/it could be so called) that I know are (at least I believe they are) out are out of date.
1. Why can't creationism and evolutionism simotaniously co-exist?(I believe people have stated that they believe it can, but others reject one or the other, I would like to see the views of the latter.)
2. Ok, now for the statements which may be completely incorrect and others that may lack pith:
some primary assumtions to start with:
1. there is no god(not that I believe this but for the sake of and lack of scientific evidence this must be assumed)(do not know how this is used in my statements but it should be assumed any way right?)
ok, for the meat:
Since there is no emperical data that shows that evolution exists, then it is based on belief, although it may be test, thus making it scientific, so why can not the side argued by creationist also be tested?(although not feasible at the moment, or maybe never would not the only way to test either is time travel?)
Now, I have been told(forgive me for not being able to verify this) that evolution has been see on the mirco-scale. Could this just be mutation(just observed in one generation, not produced by generations of change) due to the size of the subjects used?(being smaller making the subjects need less to mutate).
Now, creationism, at least as I understand it, has two ways to prove it, thus being just as sketchy as evolution, since both for the most part can only be proved by going back in time and checking it. Although, creationism has the extra of us being told by some advanced civiliztion, I don't see this happining anytime soon(if ever).
The reason that, even if the the on the micro-scale, evolution exists there is still no proof that it exists on the macro-scale. One would have to assume this, unless it is seen(similiar to humans during the 15 century assuming that the earth was flat, no one had gone around, thus no one could say for sure, even though the math said it was, emperical data is needed to convice everyone and even then the most close-minded people still won't believe(although they may admit they are wrong)).
I am not really debating to either creationism or evolutionism, but I do believe that the statement of "creationism does not belong in science" invalid, although it may be true.
I would now again like to state that I am no expert, I just want to see if the ideas I have posted hold up to your standards(and I would like to educate myself in both creationistic and evolutionistic theories, and to de-bias myself, using the information provided). Thank you for your time.
Thantos
05-09-03, 11:44 PM
quoting 5th Element:
you know what? that's a great idea actually. or i say, we should just completely have seperate nations. a scientific nation and a religious nation. we'll see then how things progress.
I agree that in this day and age the scientific nation would, at least in the beginning would kick the religious nation's ass. Now the subjigation(spelling?) of the religious nation is not logical at all, so it would be destroyed, if assimilation were allowed it could possibly corrupt the scientific nation.
Now, What laws and morals would govern this scientific nation(if you would like, no god exists, and the religious nation never existed(the existence of it may corrupt the scientific nation))?
Now for the other side:
How could religion ever have come about if it had not been for science?(we would be wasting to much time hunting for food, not thinking about what happens in the afterlife(if it exists that is))
DefSkeptic
05-10-03, 10:35 PM
HarryKarry-
if i apply critical thinking to this....i come up with something not very nice so i hesitate.... but what the hell... i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god.
Funny you should mention this, because Freud had a little something to say on this......not exactly as you put it though.
Freud certainly regarded belief in God as an illusion that mature men and women should lay aside. The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind.
5th Element
05-10-03, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Thantos
ok, I am going to make statements that have absolutly no pith once so ever(I think), I just want to see the statements against them(oh, and I am a little rusty on evolution so, if you could identify a site that explains exactly what is meant(such as are mutations counted even though it is an immediate change(not entirely what I am trying to ask, but I lack the vocabulary in which to communicate the question effectively), and what is the genetic variation percantage that defines a new species?). I am also intereseted in a good creationism defination(most of the evolution and creationism theories(they/it could be so called) that I know are (at least I believe they are) out are out of date.
1. Why can't creationism and evolutionism simotaniously co-exist?(I believe people have stated that they believe it can, but others reject one or the other, I would like to see the views of the latter.)
2. Ok, now for the statements which may be completely incorrect and others that may lack pith:
some primary assumtions to start with:
1. there is no god(not that I believe this but for the sake of and lack of scientific evidence this must be assumed)(do not know how this is used in my statements but it should be assumed any way right?)
ok, for the meat:
Since there is no emperical data that shows that evolution exists, then it is based on belief, although it may be test, thus making it scientific, so why can not the side argued by creationist also be tested?(although not feasible at the moment, or maybe never would not the only way to test either is time travel?)
Now, I have been told(forgive me for not being able to verify this) that evolution has been see on the mirco-scale. Could this just be mutation(just observed in one generation, not produced by generations of change) due to the size of the subjects used?(being smaller making the subjects need less to mutate).
Now, creationism, at least as I understand it, has two ways to prove it, thus being just as sketchy as evolution, since both for the most part can only be proved by going back in time and checking it. Although, creationism has the extra of us being told by some advanced civiliztion, I don't see this happining anytime soon(if ever).
The reason that, even if the the on the micro-scale, evolution exists there is still no proof that it exists on the macro-scale. One would have to assume this, unless it is seen(similiar to humans during the 15 century assuming that the earth was flat, no one had gone around, thus no one could say for sure, even though the math said it was, emperical data is needed to convice everyone and even then the most close-minded people still won't believe(although they may admit they are wrong)).
I am not really debating to either creationism or evolutionism, but I do believe that the statement of "creationism does not belong in science" invalid, although it may be true.
I would now again like to state that I am no expert, I just want to see if the ideas I have posted hold up to your standards(and I would like to educate myself in both creationistic and evolutionistic theories, and to de-bias myself, using the information provided). Thank you for your time.
You can educated yourself and entertain both. But you cannot logically agree with both.
As for as Creationism and Evolution co-existing.
Creationism (Religion), Evolution (Science)
Science will never drink from the same cup as religion, because religion has poisoned that cup.
5th Element
05-10-03, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Thantos
quoting 5th Element:
I agree that in this day and age the scientific nation would, at least in the beginning would kick the religious nation's ass. Now the subjigation(spelling?) of the religious nation is not logical at all, so it would be destroyed, if assimilation were allowed it could possibly corrupt the scientific nation.
Now, What laws and morals would govern this scientific nation(if you would like, no god exists, and the religious nation never existed(the existence of it may corrupt the scientific nation))?
Now for the other side:
How could religion ever have come about if it had not been for science?(we would be wasting to much time hunting for food, not thinking about what happens in the afterlife(if it exists that is))
Logic and Scientific philosphy will govern morals and values in this nation of science.
Please elaborate further on your final question. My apologies, I don't quite understand.
Thantos
05-11-03, 01:42 PM
The final question is basically saying this:
Since, we used to be a hunter/gatherer society all we did was hunt and gather, although we may have had a religion, I am making the assumtion that at first all we did was hunt and gather and have no religion because we had no time for any thought other than survival. With advances in science we gained more time to think, thus in all probability religion came from this original thinking and the inability to explain the elements. This brings the question of how religion could have ever existed without science?
I do not believe that logic has any place governing a body of irrational creatures(irregardless of what anybody thinks they are not rational, they may entertain rational thoughts but in the end all humans are irrational). And I have not the slightest idea what scientific philosophy is(heard of philosophy, but not scientific philosophy, if you could give a quick(1-4 sentence) summary of it?), so I can not agrue it one way or the other.
(would scientific philosophy be in an encyclopedia?(decided I was tired of a lot of the bs that is on the internet) Also would creationism be in an encyclopedia?)
Thantos - You say that -" at first all we did was hunt and gather and have no religion because we had no time for any thought other than survival. With advances in science we gained more time to think".
Please don't fall for this nonsense. A quick glance into anthropology will show you that this is exactly back to front. Eg Marshall Sahlins "..hunters and gatherers work less than we do, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the day time per capita per year than in any other condition of society". The idea that our lives are getting easier or more leisurely is simply ridiculous and no more than an urban fairy tale.
Thantos
05-13-03, 01:02 PM
Thank you for educating me. (no sarcasm)
I have given up entertaining such ideas as creationism, they are obviously false, there is no evidence that there is a god(or all creating force). I have decided to use this more logical and scientific means to pick and choose the ideas that are true.
And where may I find a complete source for information regarding evolution?
Are some aspects of biotic reality better explained by teleological evolution rather than non-teleological evolution? Can evidence gathered via the scientific method help strengthen the inference that certain things in nature are intelligently designed? I believe the answer to both questions is yes.
DefSkeptic
05-13-03, 02:59 PM
Thantos-
A great site for information regarding evolution is www.talkorigins.org
Ellimist
05-13-03, 08:22 PM
11 months, 229 posts... This thread has been vibrant, I wish I could have been here from the beginning, harry's comment(first creationist) would have been fun to go off on...
But, it is interesting that the creationists continued this topic for 11 months, when it is obvious that creationism is not science and only science is to be taught in a science classroom. And they know that, too, they just cannot grasp that religion is for religious school...
Ha ha, this is a fun thread, ignorant creationists...
www.skeptic.com
www.csicop.org
To be a Creationist in the old fashioned Christian sense does seem a bit Luddite these days. However intelligent design, teleology, and the idea that evolution is not an entirely mindless process are still (IMO) perfectly reasonable ideas (and, for what it's worth, perfectly scientific ones). Eg. Dolly the sheep, domestic cattle, the extinction of the Dodo, the extermination of native americans, rainforest tribes, aborigines etc. All of these have evolutionary consequences and none are explicable without ID or teleology.
5th Element
05-14-03, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Thantos
The final question is basically saying this:
Since, we used to be a hunter/gatherer society all we did was hunt and gather, although we may have had a religion, I am making the assumtion that at first all we did was hunt and gather and have no religion because we had no time for any thought other than survival. With advances in science we gained more time to think, thus in all probability religion came from this original thinking and the inability to explain the elements. This brings the question of how religion could have ever existed without science?
I do not believe that logic has any place governing a body of irrational creatures(irregardless of what anybody thinks they are not rational, they may entertain rational thoughts but in the end all humans are irrational). And I have not the slightest idea what scientific philosophy is(heard of philosophy, but not scientific philosophy, if you could give a quick(1-4 sentence) summary of it?), so I can not agrue it one way or the other.
(would scientific philosophy be in an encyclopedia?(decided I was tired of a lot of the bs that is on the internet) Also would creationism be in an encyclopedia?)
So your question would be: Would religion ever exist w/o science?
What is the point of this question?
Science existed well before man, we only are starting to discover some of it.
Scientific Philosophy refers to philosophers who shows heavy scientific influence. This combination is considered very powerful and hard to argue against. If you've taking some philosphy classes you'll see it in some of the students and they seem to dominate.
I am interested in investigating whether or not life itself owes its origin to design through intelligent intervention. To help me do this, I look to examples other than life: things that are designed through intelligent intervention and things that are not designed through intelligent intervention. More specifically, I look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, I simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention.
(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense.
(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:
"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. In chapter 4, I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."
Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??
I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for the design of life through intelligent intervention. While these reasons may be insufficient to prove design, or even generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient for employing ID as a working hypothesis.
(3) Concerning abiogenesis, Paul Davies also writes:
"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit that they are baffled."
At this point, we need to ask a question: Why are origin of life researchers baffled?
During the many decades since abiogenesis was proposed, scientific advance has progressed at an incredible rate. Yet research into abiogenesis stagnates. Why? Non-teleologists have faith that this is simply another gap to be filled with the same scientific cement used to uncover the genetic code and clone Dolly. But is it? The problem is that the very advances in science we have seen are not working to make abiogenesis more tractable, but instead, are highlighting (1) and (2) above. Thus I have an explanation for this bafflement - (1) and (2). That is, the same level of bafflement would exist if scientists insisted on explaining the origin of human artifacts without reference to intelligent intervention. In contrast, non-teleologists have no specific explanation for this atypical level of scientific bafflement.
Therefore, I maintain the failure of origin-of-life (OOL) research not only supports (1) and (2), but is explained by (1) and (2).
Canute<< To be a Creationist in the old fashioned Christian sense does seem a bit Luddite these days. However intelligent design, teleology, and the idea that evolution is not an entirely mindless process are still (IMO) perfectly reasonable ideas (and, for what it's worth, perfectly scientific ones). Eg. Dolly the sheep, domestic cattle, the extinction of the Dodo, the extermination of native americans, rainforest tribes, aborigines etc. All of these have evolutionary consequences and none are explicable without ID or teleology.>>
Very insightful. Evolution is best viewed as a series of historical events and not a physical law like gravity. This means that evolution, unlike gravity, entails much contingency. Thus, the analogy of evolution to a law of nature breaks down in the most significant manner, as evolution is wide-open to intelligent intervention. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we have been able to intervene on evolution through artificial breeding and genetic engineering.
Evolution is exposed and vulnerable to intelligent intervention. Therefore, evidence for common descent isn't evidence for Darwinian evolution. All this evidence can be cleared from the table. The evidence the Darwinist needs is evidence of non-teleological mechanisms of evolution at work. I think much of the data from natural history can be re-interpreted in light of teleological evolution.
Warren - fantastic stuff. IMHO you've said something very important, or at least I have learnt something that seems to me to be of importance. 'Evolution' is not a category of deterministic law, such as 'gravity' or the 'laws of complexity'. Evolutionary theory is an historical and statistical narrative shot with a wide angle lens in soft focus, it is an explantion, it does not explain WHY anything happens, why things do what they do, it just explains the consequences of what things did. In other words the unfolding of evolution must be driven by something other than evolution itself, for evolution cannot be both the result of biological behaviour and at the same time its cause. Evolution, as you say, is not some law that in some strange way causes things to happen. Individual actions and behaviour (whether purposeful, intended, accidental, oer entirely mindless) cause evolution, and not the other way around. Also you must be right when you suggest that the the actual unfolding of the evolutionary story, of what happens from moment to moment, must be infinitely sensitive to the consequences of intelligent or conscious actions and interventions. I hadn't looked at it like that before.
I realise now that this has been supported by others. Eg. Nobel Laureate H.J.Muller,who said - 'purpose is not imported into nature, and need not be puzzled over as a strange or divine something else that gets inside and makes life go...it is simply implicit in the fact of biological organisation, and it is to be studued rather than admired or "explained" '. And also G.G. Simpson - 'The Purposer is each and every individual organism, from the inception of life, which struggles and strove to make the best of its limited opportunities.'
This would seem to suggest that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is just a rather mechanical/statistical way of looking at an infinity of moment by moment individually conscious acts that were all done by individual entities completely on purpose but with all sorts of accidental consequences. This would be a turn up. It makes sense to me.
Hi Canute,
You make some good points.
Here is some further clarification of where I'm coming from. My position includes a tentative inference to ID behind the original cells that were deposited on this earth. I don't rule out further instances of intelligent intervention, but I have not really looked into things such as the origin of multicellularity, body plans, etc. My position, however, allows me to think about evolution in a different light. That is, if indeed life was designed, there is no a priori reason to exclude ID as a possible mechanism behind some later aspect of evolution. The genie is out of the bottle and thus the privileged status of the blind watchmaker in evolution no longer exists. The blind watchmaker explanation must now compete against intelligent watchmaker models - that is the significance of ID behind the origin of life.
I am not anti-evolution but I am skeptical that non-teleological evolution is behind the origin of biological complexity. For me, design at the origin of life changes the entire ball game with regards to evolution. If life was designed, there is no longer any reason to grant the blind watchmaker mechanism a default position when interpreting the data for later evolution.
Currently the ID hypothesis is that life on this planet was designed and evolution followed. However, a teleological cause at the base opens doors for thinking about evolution through a teleological filter, as there is no reason to exclude intelligent intervention. Thus, I am faced with five sub-hypotheses:
1. Every major evolutionary change was a consequence of intelligent intervention.
2. Key evolutionary changes were due to intelligent intervention.
3. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.
4. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.
5. Permutations of 2, 3, and 4.
I'm skeptical of #1, but intrigued by 2-5 (keep in mind, however, that non-teleologists are unable to process such hypotheses).
everneo
05-14-03, 05:55 PM
Warren,
the question of intelligent design is open to debate but no evolutionist would agree that. they would be too happy to take up occam's razor to eliminate ID. this i noticed at several discussions. whenever ID is proposed they tend to ask how and why. i generally agree with you in that ruling out ID is not in the best interest of evolution studies.
what exactly you mean by intelligent intervention in those sub-hypotheses..?
Hi Everneo,
Evolutionists that are non-teleologists are going to object to ID, however, it's not the data from natural history that is driving their objections but rather their materialistic presuppositions.
My particular ID hypothesis is a modest extension of Crick/Orgel's hypothesis of directed panspermy. But there is nothing in the biological data that would distinguish a natural intelligence from a supernatural intelligence. I have asked various ID critics to help me with such a criterion of distinction and, after two years, no one has offered a thing. This indicates I am right - there is nothing in biology that would make this distinction. Thus, following the lead of logic I have always been consistent in noting and accepting that I can only infer a human-like intelligence. To step further and identify this intelligence would require that I invoke factors extrinsic to the approach I take. I realize that the typical anti-ID mindset is unable to process this logic and instead perceives it as part of a "plot or agenda." It's all a function of the stereotypes that shape their thinking.
As for Occam's razor, one problem I have with using the razor at this level is that if ID were in fact behind the origin of life the razor would tell us otherwise. There is no way to actually test the razor itself. All that can be said is that it has proven to a be a good rule of thumb but who knows if it can successfully distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes at the origin of life?
Occam's razor basically means that one does not multiply entities unnecessarily, however, current abiogenesis explanations invoke thousands of HYPES { hypothetical postulated entities} in the form of imaginary, ill-defined precursors to the cell, unobserved simple sloppy entities with imaginary functions, evolving via imaginary selective advantages, and existing in imaginary environments.
Originally posted by Warren
As for Occam's razor, one problem I have with using the razor at this level is that if ID were in fact behind the origin of life the razor would tell us otherwise. There is no way to actually test the razor itself. All that can be said is that it has proven to a be a good rule of thumb but who knows if it can successfully distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes at the origin of life?
The problem with the razor is that we judge new and half-formed (thus ill-understood and unsimplified) theories against those that we have been refining for years. Thus all alternative (to orthodox) theories are discriminated against when Occam is invoked early on to dismiss new ideas. Also, as you say, Occam does not tell us anything about which theories are right and which wrong.
On your list -
1. Every major evolutionary change was a consequence of intelligent intervention.
Agree - as long as you don't mean the evolutionary change was the intended effect of these interventions/actions. (All our actions affect evolution but we don't intend this).
2. Key evolutionary changes were due to intelligent intervention.
This is included in 1. and redundant.
3. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.
This is the bit I do not agree with (assuming you mean 'purposefully' front loaded).
4. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.
I cannot see any way in which it makes sense to say that evolution was designed. As you say - evolution is just what happens for other reasons. I don't think you mean this.
IMO the trouble with saying that life originated off-planet is that it leaves the same old regression - it must have originated somewhere - and we might as well assume it was here.
Canute<< IMO the trouble with saying that life originated off-planet is that it leaves the same old regression - it must have originated somewhere - and we might as well assume it was here.>>
I disagree. Crick/Orgel's hypothesis of directed panspermy was developed precisely bcause the evidence doesn't support abiogenesis on this planet. Besides, regression is only a problem if one is trying to come up with explanations that point to an Ultimate Answer. We humans all have this desire, but the desire is mostly emotive and not rational. Is there really a rational reason to expect that we humans have the intellectual and experiential ability to come up with The Ultimate Answer?
From the Christian Theistic perspective, we would not have that sort of regression problem since the Christian God is proposed as infinite and absolute and not of material subtance that began to exist.
If one is so concerned, the regression problem is also eliminated under at least two explanations that do not equate the intelligence in ID with God:
1. Abiogenesis did occur on another planet (where unlike earth conditions were favorable for it), intelligence evolved there, and this intelligence seeded earth with life.
2. The ETI that seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history.
Fair enough - but I'm not giving up on ultimate answers yet.
As for the regression -
"1. Abiogenesis did occur on another planet (where unlike earth conditions were favorable for it), intelligence evolved there, and this intelligence seeded earth with life. "
This does not solve the problem.
"2. The ETI that seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history."
This does, but at the cost of positing some divine entity that bothers for some reason to create this universe. I agree that conciousness may be fundamental to existence but can't agree with Gods creating it all on purpose, Still, you could be right.
JoojooSpaceape
05-18-03, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Mr. G
QED. Science didn't find creationism, creationism attached itself to Science. In the search for credibility, appearing credible is far easier than being credible.
Veyr... Very nice, I applaud
Hi JooJooSpaceape,
Define creationism.
Chiasma
05-19-03, 06:21 PM
Warning, I have not read any of the post in this, but wanted to comment of creationism and science. I am a christian, and I beleive that creationism should NOT be in a science classroom. Why? Because it is not science. What defines science? Science is something that can be tested. You test, come up with a hypothesis, and you test that hypothesis. collect data, and verify, or come up with a new hypothesis, etc... You can't do that with the theory of creationism. You either believe it, or you don't. Even God doesn't want it to be tested. And I quote "don't test thy god." (somewhere in the bible, but I forget where at the moment).
Creationism can be taught in schools. No problem. It is a philosophy that can be argued untill you turn blue in the face, but it boils down to a belief. You either believe or you don't. So, It can be taught in a philosophy class, but not a science classroom.
Evolution on the other hand, has been tested, and can be tested using archeology, genetics, molecular biology, looking at plants, viruses, bacteria, etc... There are endless account of test on the evlutionary idea.
Alot of this may have already been mentioned, so I am sorry If it is redundent off of someone elses post.
DefSkeptic
05-19-03, 06:25 PM
Chiasma-
On behalf of all the scientific minded people thank you for that response. I'm glad you understand the issue and are a christian at the same time.
Chiasma,
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities.
Chiasma
05-20-03, 11:20 AM
I don't know why you pointed me out on this one, but I agree with you.
Originally posted by Warren
Chiasma,
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities.
As for the last sentence, just to warn you, this is a growing number of creationist that are using the agrument of design. saying that since the system is complicated, it must have been created by a higher power. I think this argument is failing in so many areas. It boils down to this though. We do research and do see how things work together. We do see a design. That is science. How did that disign get put into place. By nature or by GOD? That is philosophy. We see the fruits of evolution and evolutionist say, see that is it. It is the accumulation of favorable mutations. Creationist always counter that god is all powerful and can use the force of evolution to do his bidding. You see, it is and endless argument.
All in all, I totally agree with what you have posted
Chiasma<< As for the last sentence, just to warn you, there is a growing number of creationists that are using the argument of design, saying that since the system is complicated, it must have been created by a higher power.>>
Let me make sure two points are very clear.
First, the argument that "X is impossible to evolve, therefore it must have been designed" isn't an argument employed by ID theorists. Creationists may use that type of argument but ID scientists don't. In fact, the ID approach does not detract from science, but has the ability to add to it. ID'ers have already demonstrated their ability to predict various biotic phenomena such as proofreading during transcription, degradosome mechanisms, and chaperone component distributions. I maintain that the ID approach would probably have predicted the existence of things like molecular machines long before they were discovered. The ID approach helped some scientists interpret cell biology such that the role of simple diffusion was found to be minor. Read some debates between scientists who are ID advocates and scientists who are non-teleologists and you will see how these disputes show that teleological views do make predictions about how things are and how things work, which in turn, can spark research. For example, consider the most recent "virete" hypothesis and the types of tests being proposed to go along with this hypothesis. Teleological thinking has successfully guided research in the past and it is being found useful in the present. I suspect it will become even more useful in the future. What currently hinders ID are two things: our vague understanding of the cell and our "primitive" ability to design
Secondly, I do not expect non-teleologists to abandon their non-teleological approach. On the contrary, I encourage them to continue on with the status quo. My point is that non-teleologists don't have a compelling justification that everyone should be adopting their approach. There is good reason to be skeptical of non-teleological causes behind the origin of life and good reason to suspect design behind the origin of life. The ambiguities of history allow plenty of room for alternative viewpoints. Attempts to squelch other viewpoints betray only a deeply felt insecurity about one's own explanation.
Chiasma
05-20-03, 02:26 PM
1) don't take what I say out of context. I also said that that argument has many failings
2) I have no idea what a ID theorist is, nor do I know where that topic even came from. I have never accused them of anything anyway, especially scince I've never hear do them before now.
3) This thread is about creationism in science. Not ID theorist, or anything else like that, but creationism. Creationsism doesn't belong in science. They are two different intities. Science is based on imperical observation and data collecting and using that to think of new theories and hypothesis on how "things" work. Creationism is a belief, pure and simple. Now you can theorise all you want, but it boils down to a belief.
<I>The ambiguities of history allow plenty of room for alternative viewpoints. Attempts to squelch other viewpoints betray only a deeply felt insecurity about one's own explanation.</I>
4) Uhhh, where did that come from?? No one should abondon anything. I really think that people can learn from one another. It called having an opean mind. There maybe some hear in this world that may try that, but I am not one of those. Nor am I even trying to advocate it.
<I>There is good reason to be skeptical of non-teleological causes behind the origin of life and good reason to suspect design behind the origin of life.</I>
But none of that is based in science. It is not based on imperical interpelated data. It is based on theories and extrapolations. Right or wrong, it is not science. I am not saying that it can or can not help science, I am just saying it is not science, which is what this thread is about.
Lets not lose track. We are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being or GOD. We are saying that if there is a GOD, does his account of the creation of the world as according to the book of genesis be taught in science? I say No. Not because I don't beleive (because I do believe) or because I want to squalch the view of others. Thats has nothing to do with it. It has to do with what science is. It can be talked all you want in philosophy classes, scientific philosophy type class if you want to tie it with science. But it should not be taught in science. Religion and theology can, if you want to try, to help guide science, but again, it is not a science!! It has little place because it does not fit the definition of science.
And also, we actually know alot about the cell and how it works. We don't know everything and we may never know everything, but we sure know alot. Right now the biggest mystery is in molecular genetics. How genes interact, chromatin modeling, etc.. and how all of it plays together to diferentiate a cell. The cell itself, has alot known about it.
A more interesting question is to ask what should be taught in a high school class on the origins and development of life. Does one treat this like a comparative religion class and teach all the different approaches?
BTW although the creationist argument is not scientific that is not to say that it is not based on empirical evidence.
My personal theory is one of ongoing unintelligent creation (UD) - but I won't bore you.
Warren - as you say teleology is banned from evolutionary theory when it comes to origins. Is it allowed at all in the day to day activities of species, or is everything we do an accident? Or IOW is ANY teleology allowed anywhere in scientific theorising, (outside semi-sciences like psychology)?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.