Creationism and life in general

[StAnastasia]

There is no biblical value of pi. The things you refer to were hoaxes…

“He [Hiram] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.” (1 Kings 7:23)

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Here is the dissent from Darwin statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I have to disagree with you ricmat. I support the American Association for the Advancement of Science statement from 2002:

*AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to “Intelligent Design” Theory in U.S. Science Classes

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching “Intelligent Design Theory” within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

“The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom,” said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. “If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education.”

American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:

“The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can’t explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent,” said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. “This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it’s being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence.”

In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a “disputed view” within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through “disclaimer” stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

“The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry,” the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. “AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory’ as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools.”

The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.

In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that “evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a “disputed view” that must be “balanced” in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.

A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state’s education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state’s science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should “continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, Ohio’s Patrick Henry Local School District passed a motion this June to support “the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories.”

The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.

While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren. *
aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml

 

[StAnastasia]

I have to disagree with you ricmat. I support the American Association for the Advancement of Science statement from 2002]

ISSR Statement on the Concept of 'Intelligent Design’

The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

The International Society for Science and Religion is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths (see www.issr.org.uk). It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

"The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion. Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

"The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

"We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

“Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels. In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science - just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism).”

 

[LogisticsBranch]

“Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels. In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science - just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism).”

Thanks. It was from 2002. I posted this link before from Evolution, and Creationism from National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine 2008:

B]Compatibility of Science and Religion

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html

Also from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine 2008:
Science:
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.
nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

 

[edwest2]

Some Christians are attempting to use science to prove Genesis was literal.
However, some scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are using science to disprove God and supernatural beliefs in general. Of course, they are free to speak their minds but when the public sees or hears what they call scientific evidence that removes God/gods from the equation and human affairs in general, that raises appropriate suspicions regarding the purpose of science. Is it a collection of facts and observations or has it become something else?

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Some Christians are attempting to use science to prove Genesis was literal.

An impossible task.

However, some scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are using science to disprove God and supernatural beliefs in general.

An equally impossible task.

Of course, they are free to speak their minds but when the public sees or hears what they call scientific evidence that removes God/gods from the equation and human affairs in general, that raises appropriate suspicions regarding the purpose of science.

It shouldn’t.

Is it a collection of facts and observations or has it become something else?

Science is not “a collection of facts and observations,” but rather the way we interpret those facts and observations. Science is an approach to understanding the natural world we inhabit.

 

[edwest2]

You are talking about Applied Science. A fact is the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

You did not address the issue of scientists using their titles and what they call scientific evidence to remove the supernatural from the mind of the public. I think people should be aware of this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

You did not address the issue of scientists using their titles and what they call scientific evidence to remove the supernatural from the mind of the public. I think people should be aware of this.Peace,Ed

I did. I said “An equally impossible task.”

 

[edwest2]

Alright. I’d be interested to get your view of this article by Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Skepticism is a good principle. It should be and is applied to the consideration of all scientific theories, including evolution. The NCSE is strongly in agreement with this principle.

The dissent from Darwin statement is also in agreement with this principle.

But you won’t sign it, and supply the extrapolated estimated list of 120,000 scientists who wouldn’t sign it.

 

[ricmat]

I have to disagree with you ricmat. I support the American Association for the Advancement of Science statement from 2002:

*AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to “Intelligent Design” Theory in U.S. Science Classes
*

That’s fine. ID is also against teaching ID theory in science classes.

From HERE:

QUESTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE EDUCATION POLICY

 

[ricmat]

“He [Hiram] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.” (1 Kings 7:23)

That’s really a stretch - “Biblical value of pi.” The post caught my attention because I thought someone was trying to say something like “And God said Pi = 3.”

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Dissent from Darwin statement / list, or the “Steve” list.

 

[StAnastasia]

The dissent from Darwin statement is also in agreement with this principle. But you won’t sign it, and supply the extrapolated estimated list of 120,000 scientists who wouldn’t sign it.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

I don’t share this skepticism.

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged

I agree. It has been examined for 150 years, and continues to be so.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Ricmat, I’ve stated before on other topics that I’m not a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement. The Discovery Institute doesn’t cut it for me. If you had reviewed my last contribution by exploring around that website you would have read From Science, Evolution, and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine about Intelligent Design. Here read it online. nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

I’ll add one last note to this topic. I fully support the following and hope people will read the entire page online.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory celebrates re-opening of its historic Library
Tuesday, 25 May 2010 An “experimental station” on Darwinian evolution has been transformed over a century into a world-class repository of molecular biology’s history
Cold Spring Harbor, NY - An historic North Shore building that symbolically connects contemporary leading-edge biological research at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) with the first efforts by American scientists, over a century ago, to prove Darwin’s theory of evolution was reopened here this past Tuesday, May 18th, after undergoing a major two-year expansion and renovation. . . .
cshl.edu/Archive/cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-celebrates-re-opening-of-its-historic-library

 

[ricmat]

I don’t share this skepticism.

Skepticism Skep"ti*cism, n. [Cf. F. scepticisme.] [Written
also scepticism.]

1. An undecided, inquiring state of mind; doubt; uncertainty.
   [1913 Webster]

So you don’t share in having “an undecided, inquiring state of mind?”

I agree. It has been examined for 150 years, and continues to be so.

It appears then, that the examination which you do agree with must just not involve an undecided, inquiring state of mind.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, I’ve stated before on other topics that I’m not a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement. The Discovery Institute doesn’t cut it for me. If you had reviewed my last contribution by exploring around that website you would have read From Science, Evolution, and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine about Intelligent Design. Here read it online. nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Thank you for the information. Of course, you have the right to be a proponent of ID, or not, and I don’t debate that.

This is typical of what is happening all over the place:
from here:
discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

1. What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?

Click here for video
In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group’s policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.

 

[ricmat]

So what’s wrong with the dissent from Darwin statement?

Assuming that you couldn’t or wouldn’t sign it, why not? Here it is again.

" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Ricmat, I’ve stated before on other topics that I’m not a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement.

The dissent from Darwin statement says nothing about ID, pro or con.

So exactly what contents within the Dissent from Darwin statement prevent you from agreeing with it?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

The dissent from Darwin statement says nothing about ID, pro or con.

So exactly what contents within the Dissent from Darwin statement prevent you from agreeing with it?

Ricmat, review the previous page! Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the Discovery Institute is filled with proponents of the Intelligent Design Movement! Reread what I contributed on the previous page and this one. And it was the Discovery Institute that sent a press release on September 5, 2003:

*FRIDAY, SEPT. 5 – Forty scientists from across Texas have joined a group of over 250 other scientists from around the world in declaring their skepticism of a central tenet of Darwin’s theory of evolution and urging that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The list of signers of this declaration was released today by Discovery Institute and is available upon request.

The full statement signed by the scientists reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that’s just bogus,” said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life.”*

I do not support the Discovery Institute! Reread and explore what our dialogue has been about! For heaven’s sake anyone with a lick of sense knows Discovery Institute is filled to the brim with Intelligent Design advocates. I don’t support either.

 

[StAnastasia]

So you don’t share in having “an undecided, inquiring state of mind?”

Inquiring, yes; undecided, no, not in all cases.

It appears then, that the examination which you do agree with must just not involve an undecided, inquiring state of mind.

It’s not clear what you are saying.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, review the previous page! Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the Discovery Institute is filled with proponents of the Intelligent Design Movement!

Of course it is filled with proponents of the ID movement. That’s what it’s for.

If they said “God exists” would you need to disagree with it because it’s the Discovery Institute that said so?

Reread what I contributed on the previous page and this one. And it was the Discovery Institute that sent a press release on September 5, 2003:

*FRIDAY, SEPT. 5 – Forty scientists from across Texas have joined a group of over 250 other scientists from around the world in declaring their skepticism of a central tenet of Darwin’s theory of evolution and urging that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The list of signers of this declaration was released today by Discovery Institute and is available upon request.

The full statement signed by the scientists reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that’s just bogus,” said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life.”*

Actually, what is signed is only the first paragraph, not including the second paragraph shown above. But even if it included the second paragraph, what EXACTLY do you object to in the statement itself?
Here is a link to the PDF.

Here is the link to the page with the statement on it:
dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

Here is the entire content of the page (minus html formatting):

Sign the List

Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing contact@dissentfromdarwin.org.

I do not support the Discovery Institute! Reread and explore what our dialogue has been about! For heaven’s sake anyone with a lick of sense knows Discovery Institute is filled to the brim with Intelligent Design advocates. I don’t support either.

You don’t need to support everything about them to sign a paper with 2 sentences on it.

Darwin had quite a few things about him that you probably don’t care for. Does that mean that you can’t support his theory? I’ll take a wild guess and say “no.”

I know you are not going to sign the document. I don’t care really one way or the other. What I find fascinating here is the attitude of the pro-evolution crowd.