R
reggieM
Guest
It’s a multi-disciplinary conference. Science is well represented and several of the papers deal with science as can easily be seen.
- Status
B
beeliner
Guest
I see that, for instance the fourth one listed:*
Stefaan Blancke, Ghent:** Creationism and Design: turning religion into a pseudoscience ***
…and the eleventh:*
Chris Doran, Pepperdine:** And God said, ‘Let there be Specified Complexity’: a critical appraisal of intelligent design** *
So I don’t doubt that the conference will be balanced to some extent, theologians on one side, scientists on the other. I predict, however, that the crossover, if there is any, will be in the direction of theologians arguing AGAINST ID as science and not scientists arguing FOR ID as science.
Please let me know if I’m wrong!
E
edwest2
Guest
Why are you so concerned about ID? If it has no facts to back it, what’s the point? If anyone tries to teach it, what will be in their textbooks - nothing?
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
Have you seen any of the ‘Creationism’ textbooks?
The authors of these books are fully aware that it’s all nonsense, as are the publishers.
Yet they keep trying to have this garbage taught as science in public schools, and indeed ARE teaching it as such in so-called “Christian” schools all over the country, probably in your own area.
That’s why I’m concerned. ID is nothing but creationism in a suit and tie.
B
Brian_Millar
Guest
Just an idea here. What if there are things created within our genetic code that we have not tapped into yet because we refuse to look into it. Has any scientist ran any experiements to determin if this has any merit at all? If you refused to take creation seriously, it’s doubtful that you would spend time focusing energy on this matter, yet if there is something to it, aren’t we cutting ourselves short by not looking into it?
E
edwest2
Guest
What’s the problem caused by teaching this in Christian schools?
The authors are aware, as you say, “it’s all nonsense,” so are you saying the principals and teachers at these Christian schools are not aware it’s nonsense?
God bless,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
Those are excellent questions. Taking them in reverse order:
- Anyone with a high school knowledge of biology, which is all I have, can look through these texts and see that nearly everything therein is absolute tripe, and in some cases outright deception. I can’t imagine any QUALIFIED teacher or principal reaching any other conclusion, so I guess we would have to ask them. I could go on to mention the deceptions taught on other subjects such as Church history, but that is beyond the scope of the thread.
- The problem is that the students are shortchanged and deceived. One of the main reasons that I have remained a lifelong Catholic (I’m now 67) is that, in eleven years of Catholic education, I was never taught anything that I later found to be factually incorrect or deceitful. If that had happened, it’s very likely that I would have sought another spiritual home.
Fundamentalist Protestant “Christian” schools are, below the surface, much more about politics than religion.
E
edwest2
Guest
Speaking also as a lifelong Catholic, why do you care, at all, what is taught in other Christian schools?
And aren’t you aware of the recent, well publicized appearences on television of Professor Richard Dawkins, who, when asked, “Didn’t God create man from the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils?” To which he replied, “No.”
I hope you are aware that a New Atheism and a New Atheistic Rationalism denies any connection between God and Evolution. Further, that it seeks to remove religious groups from public discussions.
As a lifelong Catholic, you should read “Human Persons Created in the Image of God” in its entirety. It clearly states that evolution without divine providence is not possible. This is what I believe. But I reject out of hand any claim that random processes combined with necessity were completely sufficient in themselves.
The Catholic Church is not only about faith and morals. It concerns the whole man, human intelligence and human knowledge. The Theory of Evolution as written denies areas of reason that we still need, as mentioned by Pope Benedict.
I have no idea why you would consider this subject such a necessary component of your being a Catholic. In my time in Catholic school, it was very clear what happened, but today, atheists have grasped only what will help spread their beliefs. That is the reason for the constant posting here and on other sites on the internet. The Atheist Evangelical Association cares nothing about the God part, just as long as you believe in evolution. Then God will be quietly swept away and “science” will be in charge.
God bless.
Ed
And aren’t you aware of the recent, well publicized appearences on television of Professor Richard Dawkins, who, when asked, “Didn’t God create man from the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils?” To which he replied, “No.”
I hope you are aware that a New Atheism and a New Atheistic Rationalism denies any connection between God and Evolution. Further, that it seeks to remove religious groups from public discussions.
As a lifelong Catholic, you should read “Human Persons Created in the Image of God” in its entirety. It clearly states that evolution without divine providence is not possible. This is what I believe. But I reject out of hand any claim that random processes combined with necessity were completely sufficient in themselves.
The Catholic Church is not only about faith and morals. It concerns the whole man, human intelligence and human knowledge. The Theory of Evolution as written denies areas of reason that we still need, as mentioned by Pope Benedict.
I have no idea why you would consider this subject such a necessary component of your being a Catholic. In my time in Catholic school, it was very clear what happened, but today, atheists have grasped only what will help spread their beliefs. That is the reason for the constant posting here and on other sites on the internet. The Atheist Evangelical Association cares nothing about the God part, just as long as you believe in evolution. Then God will be quietly swept away and “science” will be in charge.
God bless.
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
- I don’t care what they teach as matters of religious faith, as long as it does not involve slander of my own Church. I might consider such teachings erroneous, but they have the same freedom of religion as I.
- I agree with him. I consider that, as stated, allegory.
- Well, I would like to know more about that. Seeks to remove them how?
- I haven’t read it, but that particular statement seems rather meaningless to me. Given that God exists, how can one speculate on what would or would not be possible if He did not?
- Indeed, and Catholic intellectuals have been in the forefront of the advance of human knowledge throughout modern history. ‘Creationism’ seeks to retard human knowledge.
- Here I think you go seriously astray. There is no “Theory of Evolution” (with capital letters). There is the scientific fact of the evolution of species through natural selection and other processes and there are various theories - plural, lower case - regarding the various aspects of how that occurs.
- Did I say that?
- I think that you are vastly overstating the extent of ‘evangelism’ within the atheist community; in fact, I don’t even think that an ‘atheist community’ exists. I know lots of atheists; most of them have no problem with religion as long as it does not interfere with their own freedom of belief or non-belief.
I also think that you’re attaching way too much importance to this one issue. Species evolve. Period. There are atheist scientists just as there are atheist dentists and atheist sheep herders. If all of them found God today, species would continue to evolve.
To me, the main concern remains the deceptive teaching of religious concepts as scientific fact. That is shameful, and demeans both science and religion.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, I don’t know if I’ll be able to know enough to respond to your prediction here. But I think it’s enough to point out that ID has a prominent place at the table – with philosophers and scientists in this conference. This is relatively new. Personally, I wouldn’t predict that ID will be shut-down as “non-science” in the end. It is contributing to the discussion and opening up new pathways of thought – as this conference indicates.
E
edwest2
Guest
To beeliner,
You are either badly misinformed or the victim of a current, media-wide campaign to promote secularism, and atheism with a strong dose of anti-Christian propaganda.
The unorganized atheists that you think simply want to live and let live have a lobbyist in Washington. The first in American history.
cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/25/politics/main974730.shtml
Creationism retards human knowledge? How do you know that? A group called Rally for Reason protested outside of the recently opened Creation Museum. If you go to their web site, you will see the majority of their supporters are atheists. Now why didn’t they call themselves Rally for Science?
I suggest you go, at your discretion, to some atheist, secular humanist and Darwinist web sites. See what they’re talking about for yourself.
I would also like to mention the International conferences they hold, and even Richard Dawkins has a Foundation. One of his goals is to promote a book telling parents how to raise their children as atheists.
“Creationism,” as you refer to it, does not retard science in the slightest. Individuals and groups take their own time and own money to investigate it. If they have nothing to show for their efforts, why worry?
I also think your concern about teaching Creationism in other Christian schools is entirely without foundation. I am certain that biologists go to work every day and continue their work regardless of how many “Creationists” are out there. You should be aware that a coordinated media propaganda campaign is ongoing to remove religious voices from public discourse. Scientist Sam Harris made this very clear when he referred to his fellow scientists who listen to what he calls “the alien hiss of religion” as “pod people, who look like scientists, who work as scientists…” but who actually consider the words of the Pope!!
God bless,
Ed
You are either badly misinformed or the victim of a current, media-wide campaign to promote secularism, and atheism with a strong dose of anti-Christian propaganda.
The unorganized atheists that you think simply want to live and let live have a lobbyist in Washington. The first in American history.
cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/25/politics/main974730.shtml
Creationism retards human knowledge? How do you know that? A group called Rally for Reason protested outside of the recently opened Creation Museum. If you go to their web site, you will see the majority of their supporters are atheists. Now why didn’t they call themselves Rally for Science?
I suggest you go, at your discretion, to some atheist, secular humanist and Darwinist web sites. See what they’re talking about for yourself.
I would also like to mention the International conferences they hold, and even Richard Dawkins has a Foundation. One of his goals is to promote a book telling parents how to raise their children as atheists.
“Creationism,” as you refer to it, does not retard science in the slightest. Individuals and groups take their own time and own money to investigate it. If they have nothing to show for their efforts, why worry?
I also think your concern about teaching Creationism in other Christian schools is entirely without foundation. I am certain that biologists go to work every day and continue their work regardless of how many “Creationists” are out there. You should be aware that a coordinated media propaganda campaign is ongoing to remove religious voices from public discourse. Scientist Sam Harris made this very clear when he referred to his fellow scientists who listen to what he calls “the alien hiss of religion” as “pod people, who look like scientists, who work as scientists…” but who actually consider the words of the Pope!!
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I think the theology department is a reasonable place to discuss ID. It could be included in a course in comparative religions.
There’s nothing dishonest about presenting it as an alternative religion. The only dishonesty would be in pretending it was science.
There’s nothing dishonest about presenting it as an alternative religion. The only dishonesty would be in pretending it was science.
R
ricmat
Guest
So if ID researchers, using standard scientific methodology and mathematical analysis discover evidence of design in nature, you would teach these discoveries in the theology department?
R
rossum
Guest
If ID was able to produce scientific evidence of design, then it would indeed be legitimate to teach ID in science departments. So far that has not happened.
As an example of what needs to be done, ID needs to think of a way to falsify design. What would something look like that could not have been designed? All scientific theories can in principle be falsified by the evidence - what scientific evidence would falsify Intelligent Design?
rossum
R
ricmat
Guest
Well, thank YOU Rossum - at least you have an open mind and a consistency about you.
So far as “it hasn’t happened yet” - with regard to ID criticisms of evolution, perhaps that’s true. The ID thing spans not just evolution but cosmology as well. The Privileged Planet goes into this quite well.
I’m an ID amateur, so I can’t answer your questions about falsifiability. I’m not sure that “falsifiability” is used universally to determine what can be taught as science. It would be nice if we could get Behe or Dembski on the forum here. But they probably have better things to do than argue with us
R
reggieM
Guest
Agreed. ID is working in a scientific context.Well, thank YOU Rossum - at least you have an open mind and a consistency about you.
The fact that it “could” bring new scientific insights is enough to say that ID is working in the sphere of science.
The concept of “falsifying” something is another philosophical component of science. It is not science itself.
If it is true that in science “nothing can be proven” (another philosophical opinion), then it’s also true that nothing can be proven false.
Of course, studies on probability can be conducted on “accidental processes”. Forensic science is an application of Intelligent Design theory.
If it can be shown that there are aspects of nature which could not have been produced through accidental (Darwinistic) processes – then other ideas could be explored.
Intelligent Design theory actually has far more support than it is sometimes made to appear.
For those who believe that God exists, the idea that God directly created or directed certain natural processes (outside of evolution) cannot be entirely ruled out.
B
beeliner
Guest
I think I’ve addressed most or all of this previously and have nothing much to add.
You are obviously a theocrat - you want to live in a society that is a Christian version of Iran.
The US constitution doesn’t allow that. I’m for keeping religion out of politics and vice-versa.
Fair enough, difference of opinion.
R
rossum
Guest
However, it is helpful. A falsifiable hypothesis that passes a lot of tests that could have falsified it, but did not, has a certain strength to it. An unfalsifiable hypothesis does not have that strength. The hypothesis that “The world was created last Thursday with the perfect appearance of age” is unfalsifiable, and hence not of very much use. The Popperian definition is not all there is to science, but it is a useful defenition.
Here we disagree. The hypothesis “Gravity always causes objects to repel each other” can be proven false, as can many others.
A good point. Too many ID supporters think that there are only two alternative explanations: evolution and ID. The default position of science is “we don’t know”, so if evolution were shown to be insufficient to explain something then any number of alternative explanations would be possible. The alternatives would include ID, but would not be limited to ID. ID would still have to establish itself against the alternatives.
An actual example of this was the first discovery of Pulsars. One of the possible explanations for this newly discovered phenomenon was ID - the “Little Green Men” hypothesis - but it was only one among a number of explanations considered. In the event the ID hypothesis did not get accepted, but it was certainly considered. Jocelyn Bell herself gives the details at Little Green Men, White Dwarfs or Pulsars?.
rossum
R
reggieM
Guest
My comment is reacting to the notion that “nothing can be proven in science” – or what I just read recently “proof is for mathematics”. Perhaps what is meant is that “nothing can be proven true” in science. But that also is incorrect if what you say is correct (I don’t have a definite view but I’m just questioning).
The statement: “Gravity does not always cause objects to repel each other” can be proven true by science (if your proposal is correct).
This refutes the idea that one cannot talk about “proof” in science – an idea that I’ve heard several times from evolutionary supporters on these threads.
This remains a philosophical topic nonetheless. Yes, certainly very useful but also subject to non-scientific processes.
That seems reasonable and correct as I see it. ID would be one of any number of possible alternatives. I think this is why ID theorists are looking first at weaknesses in evolutionary theory. If those weaknesses can be found, then there is room for an alternative idea.
Side note on this part of the discussion – We’ve covered an enormous amount of territory in two posts here – which would have taken 50 or 60 with other Darwinian advocates here on CAF to reach a similar kind of consensus – actually, the consensus would not have been reached yet.
It indicates to me that the defense of evolution does not need to be as dogmatic and defensive as we’ve seen in many cases.
R
rossum
Guest
Science can prove hypotheses or theories to be false, it can never prove them true. Science works by setting up hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. Those that remain standing at the end of the process are considered provisionally correct. Sometimes a ‘disproof’ is just a limitation. Newton’s gravity is wrong, but is accurate enough for most purposes providing you avoid the relativistic and quantum extremes.
Yes. But that does not disallow the possibility that in future gravity might cause objects to repel each other. This example is not a particularly useful formulation; more useful hypotheses would normally be unprovable.
It is impossible to prove universal positive statements: “everything everywhere everywhen does X” - we can never observe everything everywhere everywhen. It is also impossibe to prove any scientific theory: “X happens because …”. Since we do not know what observations, discoveries and experiments might happen in future we can never be certain that we have a complete explanation. Scientific theories are just those hypotheses left standing after the scientific world has tried to knock them down. We can never be certain that a theory will not be knocked down (disproven) tomorrow. The bigger the theory the bigger the reward for knocking it down. Einstein knocked down Newton and got a Nobel Prize.
One issue I have with creationism/ID is that many do not make your second step. They assume that there are only two explanations and that they can “prove” ID/creationism by shooting holes in evolution. That is not enough. If evolution were disproved tomorrow then science would revert to the default “we don’t know”, and ask ID/creationism “what positive evidence do you have for your hypothesis?”, “what predictions does your hypothesis make?” and “how could we, in principle, falsify your hypothesis?”.
Different people have different styles. I live in England so I am under less immediate threat of creationsm/ID being legislated into my tax funded schools than some in the USA. That might enable me to take a more relaxed view of the issues.
rossum
- Status