There is so many scientific frauds amongst the theist community with alterative motives, which I think is appalling, that surely there is some genuine ones, law of probability. My vote for a genuine theist, Christian in this case, scientist is Huge Ross. Rather than copy and pasting articles he has written I thought I'd share both a introduction video, and a lengthy one which might be a starting point for further investigation if anyone is interested. He is an astrophysicist and I personally think he knows what he's talking about but I'm no physicist. Is he genuine? Intro: More In Depth: Recently I discovered that an influencing scientist James Tour could have mislead me, so I wouldn't mind genuine response to this thread, no flaming or personal attacks. Just thoughts. EDIT: Added debate.
It's a pity you resort to digging up cranks like this when there are perfectly normal scientists around who are religious believers. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. It is not a respectable point of view. A better bet would be someone like Keneth Miller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
I don't think he is a crank but could be proved wrong. Intelligent Design is possible, it can't be disproven, and it makes sense. I know that. He is against Creationism. I noticed the guy in your link criticises Creationism not Intelligent Design, He isn't an astrophysicist either. Maybe a debate would of been a better video. EDIT: Thanks for the link Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, ID is pseudoscience and anyone who goes in for it is therefore a crank. ID purports to be science, but is in fact based on bogus reasoning, has no observational support and is unfalsifiable, thus failing Popper’s test for a scientific theory. ID is merely a variant of creationism, dressed up in scientific clothing to bamboozle American schools into teaching it as science. However, if what you mean is simply that this Ross guy believes for religious reasons that the start of life may have involved a divine miracle, that is creationism, certainly, but not in itself ID. Miller most certainly does criticise ID and the link I provided states this explicitly. You may want to re-read it to check. In fact he was an expert witness at the Kitzmiller trial in 2005 that established in law that ID is religion and not science and thus can’t be taught as science in US schools. And indeed he’s a biologist not an astrophysicist, but then ID is about biology, not astrophysics.
Thanks for pointing that out exchemist. Huge does know what he's talking about when it comes to astrophysics(I think), I don't know why he has to embroil himself with biology to be honest. In American schools I hear, they teach that we know the origin of life, not sure about this country. It all seems like a mess to me. I was under the impression that ID tried to explain all creation, including the universe, I've heard it somewhere. What is the point in ID? It's not important for faith, just an interest of mine.
Well you can look it up on Wiki. But essentially ID was a social engineering project dreamt up by a now deceased American lawyer called Philip Johnson, to get religion taught in US state schools, by the backdoor. This all came out when his strategy, summarised in something called the Wedge Document, was accidentally leaked. The idea was to create a pseudoscientific theory that the origin of life is scientifically impossible to account for by natural processes, and therefore there must have been input from some kind of guiding intelligence. This guiding intelligence should on no account be called "God" however, or it would be deemed to be religion rather than science and therefore ineligible to be taught in biology lessons. To get it accepted into the curriculum, they then waxed lyrical about the need for competing hypotheses, in arenas of science they claimed were areas of "controversy", to be taught equally, without bias. This tricked quite a lot of politicians and school boards, especially in the Bible Belt who were favourably disposed towards creationism. Indeed some of them leapt at it, as the scientific vindication of divine creation they had yearned for. (Needless to say, there is no such "controversy" as ID is not scientific, has published no peer-reviewed research in support, and has been ignored or summarily dismissed by professional biologists.) ID got blown out of the water in the Kitzmiller (or Dover School) trial in 2005, in which some educated parents complained about it being taught to their kids and filed a suit. It became quite a cause célèbre , in the course of which some of the cheating, bullying and misrepresentation by its supporters was unmasked. You can look the trial up on Wiki too if you are interested. One obvious flaw in it is there is no way to test the hypothesis. How could you ever conclude the origin of life is impossible by natural processes and what would be the test of that? They had a crack at that with the concept of "irreducible complexity", but how can you show that something is so complex it can't possibly have arisen by natural means. They tried with the eye, but it has been shown how eyes have evolved. They tried with the bacterial flagellum, but that too has been shown to have an evolutionary precursor. More profoundly, the very concept of ID is anti-scientific. The argument is that natural explanations are impossible, therefore we should stop researching them, just meekly accept "God did it" by a miracle, and now we can all go home. That is like medieval explanations for thunder, or earthquakes, as "acts of God". It was the refusal to accept that type of intellectual passivity which, after the Renaissance, led to the rise of modern science. All Christians accept the idea of God as Creator, but that leaves open the means used. Einstein and Spinoza, for instance, saw God as the fundamental order in the universe, i.e. the laws of physics by which we get chemistry and from there biology. No need for miracles at particular points in the process.
Intelligent Design is how I discovered science forums in general. I heard about this "theory", so I went looking for it. Never found a "theory", only found a mass of incredulity. I'm surprised to see that it is still bubbling under the surface. I would've thought the Dover trials put it to rest. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They couldn't get it taught in public schools, so our governor is trying to reroute public funds to religious schools instead. (100 years since the Scopes Monkey Trials, 50 years since I had to skip several chapters in the biology textbook, 20 years since Dover trials.... and the BS still won't go away.)
Thanks for explaining exchemist. I believe God knew exactly where we would be now, how it happened is up to scientists to discover and explain, and teachers to teach. Keep God(s) in Religious Studies.
There is 100s of YouTube videos of scientists and ID'ers debating this. I think what would break it's back is the answer to the origin of life through natural processes.
From memory ID was an attack on the theory of Evolution not Abiogenesis. As a result of the this surge of neo creationism disguised as ID, the most prominent scientific organisations on the planet released statements. They all said the same thing, ID is not science and should not be taught in schools in science class. ID is merely creation/religion. The theory of Evolution is the best explanatory mechanism of speciation of life on earth.
This is what the scientific community have to say about ID. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design
That does not reflect what the scientific community are saying. There is not one theory, there are competing theories. RNA world is still a good candidate but this puzzle will not be solved soon.
Basically ID invokes the Supernatural therefore it can't be tested or unproven which means it's not science. It doesn't stop actual scientists supporting it during debates, I can't understand that.
Yes Like Behe? Those guys are not part of a scientific debate. They have connections to organisations like the discovery institute who are not interested in science.
Behe is a fellow of the discovery institute and holds a position at university, however.... "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[6][7] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[8][9]" So even the guys with credentials are dismissed when they make claims on that subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
I am not so sure, why didn't the The Theory of Evolution do that? Only people who want to know the truth are open to ideas, ideas that may go against what they previously believed.
I don't get the "huge" nickname for Hugh Ross. (Surely it's not anatomically related.) He's apparently an old-Earth progressive creationist. Progressive creationism (PC) seems overtly crouched in Christianity, which was a cohort of Western oppression. IOW, PC can't enjoy the status of the "just so" theories outputted by secular humanities scholars in social, moral, antinaturalist, postcolonial, and other contexts. Which administrative bodies and political activist movements swiftly pick up on sans caring a whit about their actual fact-hood or effectiveness. And as a suspect "white male" or arguably Eurocentric in origin speculation... PC has little hope even in the future of acquiring some degree of mainstream tolerance -- like ideas and customs spinning off from indigenous belief systems, Islamism, Hinduism, etc. That is, thought orientations of traditional cultures once subjugated by the West may acquire some acceptance and protection as members of the social justice refuge. But, again, Christianity was a blatant accomplice of the plundering West and its racist/sexist horrors and destruction/modification of local (native) mythos and heritage. Nope. Zero hope of "Huge" Ross' progressive creationism receiving an "exploited victim" excuse card with the others as the ideological offspring of the humanities continue their "fashionable nonsense" takeover of the academic community and management level of the world. - - - SPOILER - - - Advisory for the sarcasm impaired and those slotting on the autism spectrum. _
