Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or

[Orogeny]

Andreas Hofer:

So it’s scientifically impossible that God initiated the formation of life on earth?

It is impossible to scientifically investigate God.

I hope what you meant to say is that the sort of evidence we would consider relevant to the existence of extraterrestrial life can be examined using scientific method (whereas we do not know of any empirical method to verify the existence of a Designer).

I accept your correction and I will note that you have made the connection between ID and God, which is my point.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

So, you are saying that intelligent design of life is not a scientific possibility? What planet are you on? If we look at a chemical compound, are we able to study it to determine if it was designed by a human being or a naturally occurring chemical? Of course!

If we didn’t know that it was designed by a human but found it in nature, would we be able to tell the difference? And just in case you didn’t know this, humans are part of nature, not the supernatural.

All Intelligent Design says is that we study life and determine whether it has signs of being created by an intelligent entity.

You didn’t read the document I linked to, did you. ID was designed (pun intended) to get God back into the classroom. Read the link I gave you.

There are many things that aren’t proven that are discussed in science classes. Can you prove the Big Bang? Black holes? etc… How can you prove that they don’t/didn’t exist?

First off, science doesn’t prove anything. Second, you can’t prove a negative, so you can’t prove that something didn’t exist. Is that hard to understand?

As far as the Big Bang and black holes go, are you suggesting that those are on the same level as ID? If so, I would suggest you do a little research.

If there are signs of intelligent design, those signs exist and may or not be evidence.

I don’t follow you. If there are signs, that would be evidence. Why wouldn’t that be evidence?

If there are no signs of intelligent design, then it is just a guess. If there are inconclusive signs (i.e. could be a sign of intelligence or something else), then they fall in the realm of black holes. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with examining the evidence and teaching about the theory in a classroom.

If there are inconclusive signs, it is up to ID supporters to gather the evidence necessary to point to their conclusion. If they can’t do that, then their idea doesn’t pass scientific muster and shouldn’t be taught in the classroom. If ID is science (which it isn’t), develop it before you teach it.

The fact that you aren’t the first to call it theology is also irrelevant. I’m not the first to believe in open discussion about the origin of life in classrooms. The fact that some Intelligent Design authors talk about God is also irrelevant. Some evolution theorists talk about the non-existance of God. Should that put their theory into question?

Once again, evolution has a massive amount of evidence to support it. What is the scientific evidence for ID? How do you falsify ID? Why did the people who developed the “theory” of ID admit that it is a way to get God back into the classroom if that is not indeed what the “theory” is about?

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

Once again, evolution has a massive amount of evidence to support it. What is the scientific evidence for ID? How do you falsify ID? Why did the people who developed the “theory” of ID admit that it is a way to get God back into the classroom if that is not indeed what the “theory” is about?

I really don’t care what the goals were of the people who developed ID, just as I could care less what Darwin’s goals were. The theory is either scientific or it’s not. I have a limited understanding of ID, but your arguments have not convinced me that it isn’t a scientific possibility. I try to keep an open mind on such matters.

You keep going to the existance or non-existance of God, and I keep explaining that a theory of finding a sign of intelligent design doesn’t have anything to do with the nature of the designer. You assume that the designer would have to be supernatural. I bring up other very theoretical items on limited evidence, like the existance of life on other planets, and you dismiss this .Therefore, we keep going around in circles. I don’t know if this conversation is really informing either of us.

One last question: How do you falsify the theory of evolution, again? I’m sure you explained it in previous posts.

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

I really don’t care what the goals were of the people who developed ID, just as I could care less what Darwin’s goals were. The theory is either scientific or it’s not. I have a limited understanding of ID, but your arguments have not convinced me that it isn’t a scientific possibility. I try to keep an open mind on such matters.

Why don’t you care? How open minded are you when you are presented with the words of the developers that contradict your viewpoint? What else do you need?

You assume that the designer would have to be supernatural.

You don’t? Is there a possibility that the designer isn’t God?

One last question: How do you falsify the theory of evolution, again? I’m sure you explained it in previous posts.

A horse fossil in Cambrian strata, a mammal with three sets of legs. That’s two of very many. How can you falsify ID?

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

Why don’t you care? How open minded are you when you are presented with the words of the developers that contradict your viewpoint? What else do you need?You don’t? Is there a possibility that the designer isn’t God?A horse fossil in Cambrian strata, a mammal with three sets of legs. That’s two of very many. How can you falsify ID?

Peace

Tim

I’m very open-minded. Does the intent of a scientist have anything to do with the validity of a theory? No. Many discoveries have happened by accident, when the scientist actually had another goal in mind. How open minded are you? You discount someone’s theory based on their personally held beliefs, rather than the argument of the theory.

Is there a possibility that the designer isn’t God. To a believer in God? No. To an athiest? Yes. You are making assumptions from your (and my) religious perspective. An athiest, as I was, wouldn’t make such assumptions.

Your only argument against a more intelligent being that could have designed us was that I would have to show that there is something in nature that is capable of creating a universe. 1. We don’t know at this time that the known universe is the limit of existence, but it is something that will someday be possible to detect. 2. The being that created the earth and/or life on earth didn’t have to create the known universe. 3. Proving the existence of that being is not required to see evidence that the being exists. If you saw a chair, would you need to actually meet the carpenter to prove that the chair was made by one?

You can falsify ID by showing that there is no evidence of intelligence in the design - i.e. the “design” was either random or a logical progression from a originally random event and did not require an intelligent being to design it. Why is that impossible?

BTW…I would leave the mammal with 3 sets of legs out of your falsification possibilities…finding one mutation wouldn’t disprove evolution.

 

[jman507]

To me, the idea that only science and nothing else, seems like trying to teach US history without without going into some background into other nations that interact with the US. Like we might need to understand Englands position in the Revolutionary War to have a proper understanding of the war. Inorder to have a proper understanding of science, this is one area where it might be good to take a step back and get a proper perspective of what science can tell us and what it cannot. It seems as if you don’t you end up by omission seeming to claim a materilistic stance even though the teacher knows better, but the question is does the student?

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

How open minded are you? You discount someone’s theory based on their personally held beliefs, rather than the argument of the theory.

No, I discount the argument based on the fact that there is no evidence for it and there is no way to falsify it. Add to that the statements of those who developed the idea and I cannot support it.

Is there a possibility that the designer isn’t God. To a believer in God? No. To an athiest? Yes. You are making assumptions from your (and my) religious perspective. An athiest, as I was, wouldn’t make such assumptions.

Very few athiests will be swayed by an argument for a designer. ID is a phenomena among mostly fundamentalist protestant Christians.

Your only argument against a more intelligent being that could have designed us was that I would have to show that there is something in nature that is capable of creating a universe.

No, my argument against a designer of any sort other than God is that it is a fairy tale. If you want to make an argument for a designer other than God, then you have to show that there is something in nature that is capable of creating a universe.

1. We don’t know at this time that the known universe is the limit of existence, but it is something that will someday be possible to detect.

OK, I’ll make it easy for you. Just give me evidence of a natural designer who created life on this planet.

1. The being that created the earth and/or life on earth didn’t have to create the known universe.

The answer from above will suffice.

1. Proving the existence of that being is not required to see evidence that the being exists. If you saw a chair, would you need to actually meet the carpenter to prove that the chair was made by one?

There is still the problem of lack of evidence of a designer.

You can falsify ID by showing that there is no evidence of intelligence in the design - i.e. the “design” was either random or a logical progression from a originally random event and did not require an intelligent being to design it. Why is that impossible?

You can’t prove a negative. You are saying that to falsify ID, you have to show that a designer is not possible which is a negative.

BTW…I would leave the mammal with 3 sets of legs out of your falsification possibilities…finding one mutation wouldn’t disprove evolution.

Evolution deals with species, not individuals. A single mutated animal wouldn’t fit the criteria. I should have been more specific. A species of mammals with three sets of legs would falsify evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

jman507:

To me, the idea that only science and nothing else, seems like trying to teach US history without without going into some background into other nations that interact with the US. Like we might need to understand Englands position in the Revolutionary War to have a proper understanding of the war. Inorder to have a proper understanding of science, this is one area where it might be good to take a step back and get a proper perspective of what science can tell us and what it cannot. It seems as if you don’t you end up by omission seeming to claim a materilistic stance even though the teacher knows better, but the question is does the student?

I agree. The problem with this entire argument is that people in general don’t understand what science is and isn’t. Even simple concepts like theory and proof are different things in science than in non-scientific terminology. I think that maybe every science class should start with what science is and what it isn’t. Why science works and what takes something from a hypothesis to a theory. How are ideas and data generated and tested and reviewed prior to acceptance.

I wouldn’t have a problem with that at all.

Peace

Tim

 

[chipg5]

jman507:

To me, the idea that only science and nothing else, seems like trying to teach US history without without going into some background into other nations that interact with the US. Like we might need to understand Englands position in the Revolutionary War to have a proper understanding of the war. Inorder to have a proper understanding of science, this is one area where it might be good to take a step back and get a proper perspective of what science can tell us and what it cannot. It seems as if you don’t you end up by omission seeming to claim a materilistic stance even though the teacher knows better, but the question is does the student?

But that background info will be different depending on the faith tradition of the student’s family. So whose background info do you provide, assuming we’re talking about public schools?

Providing that background info is the role of the parents and Church, not of the government school.

And let’s remember, among the most vocal and active in the fight for separation of church and state in the public schools was the Catholic Church, at a time when Protestantism was the faith dominating those classrooms. That principle, and recognition that families have the right to form the faith and spirituality of their children, while the government and public schools do not, is the reason to leave it at science in the classroom.

If you want your children to understand that the background to all of this is more than material, that the spiritual infuses all of creation, then you need to explain that to them yourself, send them to ccd, or send them to a Catholic school.

Unless you live in a country that has Catholicism as its official state religion, I think this really is the only way to go that will respect your rights as parents to determine the faith formation of your children.

 

[coyote]

rlg94086:

who are you to say that an older, more knowledgable race hasn’t developed the ability to design a whole ecosystem?

If there is mathematical evidence of intelligence, as another poster mentioned, it is possible someone billions and billions (in my best Carl Sagan voice) of miles away designed us.

I see this offered as part of the pro-ID argument often. The irony of this preposterous idea is that it makes it incumbent upon the religious faithful to embrace a heresy. It is primarily the religious faithful who keep pushing the pro-ID agenda.

Are they so enamoured of the ID position that they are willing to compromise, even sacrifice the integrity of the very religious dogma they are faithful to?

If so, why should the ID position be given any consideration at all? It is a flaccid argument.

**

**an older, more knowledgable race **

**
But I thought the universe was only 6,000 years old!

 

[rlg94086]

Yes. In the same way it interests me that those agains ID use religious heresy to deny it, but cling to evolution despite the religious heresy of many evolution proponents. The way I see it, it’s better to discuss the arguments without the religious elements involved.

coyote:

I see this offered as part of the pro-ID argument often. The irony of this preposterous idea is that it makes it incumbent upon the religious faithful to embrace a heresy. It is primarily the religious faithful who keep pushing the pro-ID agenda.

Are they so enamoured of the ID position that they are willing to compromise, even sacrifice the integrity of the very religious dogma they are faithful to?

If so, why should the ID position be given any consideration at all? It is a flaccid argument.

But I thought the universe was only 6,000 years old!

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

There is still the problem of lack of evidence of a designer.You can’t prove a negative. You are saying that to falsify ID, you have to show that a designer is not possible which is a negative.

Again, we are going around in circles. You don’t have to prove the impossibility of a designer to show that ID is invalid. All you have to do is show that the evidence the theory posits, is not a sign of design.

I’ve seen very compelling arguments against ID using this method. They apparently beleive they have falsified ID. This might be a better way to go to prove your case, rather than repeating over and over again that it’s creationism.

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

Very few athiests will be swayed by an argument for a designer. ID is a phenomena among mostly fundamentalist protestant Christians.No, my argument against a designer of any sort other than God is that it is a fairy tale. If you want to make an argument for a designer other than God, then you have to show that there is something in nature that is capable of creating a universe.OK, I’ll make it easy for you. Just give me evidence of a natural designer who created life on this planet.

Athiests, if confronted with evidence of a designer, would except ID as science; however, they would not accept that the designer was God.

As you believe the scenario presented is a fairy tale, please make sure all talk of life on other planets is removed from the classroom.

OK, I’ll make it easy for you. Give me evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet.

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Again, we are going around in circles. You don’t have to prove the impossibility of a designer to show that ID is invalid. All you have to do is show that the evidence the theory posits, is not a sign of design.

The point is is that you can’t find evidence that says a designer is not the source because that is a negative argument. I’ll say it once again, you can’t prove a negative.

If you really mean what you are writing, then you will agree that ID hasn’t found any evidence to support it. Most of the arguments, like the flagellum, the eye, etc… used for ID have been shown to be possible using natural methods (evolution).

I’ve seen very compelling arguments against ID using this method. They apparently beleive they have falsified ID. This might be a better way to go to prove your case, rather than repeating over and over again that it’s creationism.

Then why do you still cling to ID as a possibility?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

As you believe the scenario presented is a fairy tale, please make sure all talk of life on other planets is removed from the classroom.

OK, I’ll make it easy for you. Give me evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet.

I have no idea if intelligent life exists on other planets. If life does exist on other planets, I say that that life would fall within the realm of science. Because I say that, does that mean that a supernatural being would also fall within the realm of science? No.

I’m still waiting for your evidence for the natural designer that you claim is possible.

Peace

Tim

 

[Wolseley]

Interesting thread.

I usually don’t get too involved in these pro-/con- evolution arguments, for various reasons. Both sides tend to drift towards zealotry and tempers can get heated, for one thing. For myself, I personally believe God created life. Which method He used to do it, whether it was intelligent design, evolution, or following the directions on the box and baking at 350 degrees for two hours, I couldn’t care less. It’s not important and it doesn’t interest me.

I have less problem with keeping ID out of the classroom than I do with the refusal of the scientific community to acknowledge, much less teach, the various problems inherent in Darwinian evolution that throw a monkey wrench in the works.

Even in a science as exact as mathematics, there are cases where the laws don’t work in certain problems, and these are duly pointed out by the mathmeticians. But for whatever reason, when discussing evolution, discussion is squelched regarding any type of problem which arises—fossils discovered in the wrong strata, speculation on the part of the evolutionist (we have had entire “species” of proto-humans built up from a single fossil tooth, for example), lack of evidence concerning the original “spark of life” (nobody in any university has a quart jar of primeval ocean water from the Precambrian period which we might analyze for proofs), gaps (dearths of transitory forms), dichotomies (two differing sets of “proofs” which mutually disprove each other), and so on. The list is not small, and it is not minor.

I have wondered for years why these things are not brought out in the classroom, discussed, looked at, and laid before the students. What could it hurt? But you go into any school in America, and anything which even remotely casts any doubt on the whole Darwinian house of cards is either airily dismissed with a contemptuous wave of the hand, ridiculed without being answered to silence the student, or loudly and belligerently shouted down, again without ever being addressed or answered. I personally have encountered this on more than one occasion.

That’s not science either, boys and girls, it’s religious faith: believing in something despite lack of evidence, or even despite all evidence to the contrary. Which is why, until such things are answered clearly, I will continue to look at evolution with an exremely jaundiced eye, with an extreme amount of suspicion and cynicism. Until concrete proof can be offered for every last scientific problem contained in Darwinism that is currently being swept under the rug and ignored by the scientific community, then I will continue to hold my position that evolution is not science, it’s a fairy tale for adults.

Just my two cents. By all means, carry on.

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

If you really mean what you are writing, then you will agree that ID hasn’t found any evidence to support it. Most of the arguments, like the flagellum, the eye, etc… used for ID have been shown to be possible using natural methods (evolution).Then why do you still cling to ID as a possibility?

Peace

Tim

Of course I mean what I am writing. I am open-minded to scientific concepts, so I don’t really cling to anything thank you very much.

 

[rlg94086]

The evidence for a natural designer resides in the same place as the evidence for life on other planets (i.e. it hasn’t been found yet). Since life on other planets is discussed in science classes, I don’t see what the problem is. Certainly, a natural designer would fall within the realm of science as well.

You believe, because of your faith, that such a designer could not exist. Don’t let your faith determine what should or should not be in a science class.

Orogeny:

I have no idea if intelligent life exists on other planets. If life does exist on other planets, I say that that life would fall within the realm of science. Because I say that, does that mean that a supernatural being would also fall within the realm of science? No.

I’m still waiting for your evidence for the natural designer that you claim is possible.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

The evidence for a natural designer resides in the same place as the evidence for life on other planets (i.e. it hasn’t been found yet). Since life on other planets is discussed in science classes, I don’t see what the problem is. Certainly, a natural designer would fall within the realm of science as well.

Well, astrology isn’t taught, either. Since life on other planets has been discussed, I say we should included astology as well. Great argument. Ignore the science.

You believe, because of your faith, that such a designer could not exist. Don’t let your faith determine what should or should not be in a science class.

I don’t support ID, so my faith doesn’t have anything to do with what should or shouldn’t be taught in science class. I’m not the one who wants to teach something for which there is no evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Then you should favor the removal of all hypotheses for which there is no evidence. If we can discuss life on another planet without evidence, there is no reason we can’t discuss a theory, currently being argued from both sides, of intelligent design without having evidence of the creator itself. We have been studying the interrelation of species and hyptohesizing on evolution without the missing link for many years.

Your comparison with astrology is a complete non sequitor.

Orogeny:

Well, astrology isn’t taught, either. Since life on other planets has been discussed, I say we should included astology as well. Great argument. Ignore the science.I don’t support ID, so my faith doesn’t have anything to do with what should or shouldn’t be taught in science class. I’m not the one who wants to teach something for which there is no evidence.

Peace

Tim