God should be kept out of scientific Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ID the science is a pursuit of evidence of design. This design is quantified by looking at the odds of something being designed.
I was reading through the thread, and I didn’t see how this is done.

How does a person quanitfy design?

I can imagine a case. I can imagine that design is determined by chess pieces. The number of chess pieces that exist in or on a thing (compared to all the chess pieces that are known to exist in the universe) determine how likely it is to have been designed. A bacterium has zero chess pieces in or on it, so it is not designed (zero chance). However, the earth has all the chess pieces in the world on it, and those are all that are known to exist, so there’s a very high chance, near certainty, that the earth was designed.

Which method do you use, and why?
 
You are aware that the redshift data of galaxies show these galaxies are located in concentric rings about our own?
Eh, sort of. The picture isn’t that precise. It looks pretty lop-sided to me. Sort of like a web.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But the real point is, it seems any place you like can be made into the center of the universe. Just call it “the center of the universe”, make a sign, and sell tickets. I don’t think Einstein will care.
 
Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.
 
This is it? First, Humanae Generis (1950) and Communion and Stewardship are in agreement.

No purely scientific information is complete until the Church adds those other areas of reason we still need as mentioned by Pope Benedict.
This is a meaningless statement, because firstly it implies that in order for a scientific view of reality to be complete it must necessarily include all true realities; and secondly, as a consequence it implies that scientific reality includes God as a scientific object.

You would have been more accurate to say that either, Science does not give us a complete view of reality as a metaphysical whole, or, no true “philosophy” of reality is complete until God is included in the picture. I deny none of this in my OP.
This is not a trivial matter and too many, not knowing these other areas of reason exist, have an incomplete picture of the real creation.
I do not deny that, but putting God in a situation where he does not belong (in a science classroom) will not help people to gain a true and honest knowledge of God. Neither atheists nor theists should be speaking about their philosophical world views in a science lesson.
 
Eh, sort of. The picture isn’t that precise. It looks pretty lop-sided to me. Sort of like a web.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Survey_universe.jpg

But the real point is, it seems any place you like can be made into the center of the universe. Just call it “the center of the universe”, make a sign, and sell tickets. I don’t think Einstein will care.
The image doesn’t show it clearly. But looking at red-shift data and analyzing for periodicity does.
 
I was reading through the thread, and I didn’t see how this is done.

How does a person quanitfy design?

I can imagine a case. I can imagine that design is determined by chess pieces. The number of chess pieces that exist in or on a thing (compared to all the chess pieces that are known to exist in the universe) determine how likely it is to have been designed. A bacterium has zero chess pieces in or on it, so it is not designed (zero chance). However, the earth has all the chess pieces in the world on it, and those are all that are known to exist, so there’s a very high chance, near certainty, that the earth was designed.

Which method do you use, and why?
Let’s go back to the rock example. A plain rock exhibits no CSI. A rock with writing exhibits high amounts of CSI. A rock with a short story exhibits magnitudes more.

The odds are then calculated.

What ID the science is pursuing is how to better formulize it. It took a while to get the formula for gravity figured out too. We undertook the study because we observed the phenomena.

I do not agree with your example.

Let us look at features of language. No one would dispute that language symbols are not designed. So apply the odds.
 
This is a meaningless statement, because firstly it implies that in order for a scientific view of reality to be complete it must necessarily include all true realities; and secondly, as a consequence it implies that scientific reality includes God as a scientific object.

You would have been more accurate to say that either, Science does not give us a complete view of reality as a metaphysical whole, or, no true “philosophy” of reality is complete until God is included in the picture. I deny none of this in my OP.

I do not deny that, but putting God in a situation where he does not belong (in a science classroom) will not help people to gain a true and honest knowledge of God. Neither atheists nor theists should be speaking about their philosophical world views in a science lesson.
I propose this:

Only empirical science in the science classroom. Students must take mandatory philosophy classes where ID and evo can be taught.
 
snip

You would have been more accurate to say that either, Science does not give us a complete view of reality as a metaphysical whole, or, no true “philosophy” of reality is complete until God is included in the picture. I deny none of this in my OP.

I do not deny that, but putting God in a situation where he does not belong (in a science classroom) will not help people to gain a true and honest knowledge of God. Neither atheists nor theists should be speaking about their philosophical world views in a science lesson.
I cannot stress enough that this injecting of philosopy and statements about things that cannot be demonstrated by science occurs in textbooks.

To the student, to the young and inexperienced, there will be no separation between scientific information and clearly philosophical statements. After all, when Richard Dawkins appears on TV he is not speaking as an average person but as a professional, a scientist, and surely, some will assume, he must know what he’s talking about when he bases his view squarely on science. Right or wrong though he may be depending on the example used.
We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
This is the problem. And I see no one from the National Academy of Sciences or other group denouncing this. In fact, should you mention the dreaded Intelligent Design in an academic setting and you, yourself, are an instructor, then no punishment is too bad for you. A press release, possible dismissal or reassignment, questions about your possible religious motivations, and so on.

The bias exists and it is harmful.

God bless,
Ed
 
I was reading through the thread, and I didn’t see how this is done.

How does a person quanitfy design?

I can imagine a case. I can imagine that design is determined by chess pieces. The number of chess pieces that exist in or on a thing (compared to all the chess pieces that are known to exist in the universe) determine how likely it is to have been designed. A bacterium has zero chess pieces in or on it, so it is not designed (zero chance). However, the earth has all the chess pieces in the world on it, and those are all that are known to exist, so there’s a very high chance, near certainty, that the earth was designed.

Which method do you use, and why?
Now a question for you - How does one quantify a phenomemon being totally natural?
 
Let us examine the possibilities:
  1. Do we see any humans that have 48? What does this mean?
  2. If there were humans with 48 and now we all have 46, we are still human and not a new species. This would not be macro-evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=560
Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.
ROTFL!

How do you explain the fact that human beings and Chimpanzees have retrovirus sequences in analogus locations?

The only way that can be explained is by a chromosome fusion and common ancestry. Retrovirus infections are not part of the so called “design” of the human or chimpanzee genomes.
 
I propose this:

Only empirical science in the science classroom. Students must take mandatory philosophy classes where ID and evo can be taught.
That would end Western civilization as we know it. We’d go from being a scientific and engineering based industrial culture back into the dark ages.
 
Now a question for you - How does one quantify a phenomemon being totally natural?
When a phenomenon has a natural explanation that requires no supernatural or metaphysical baggage to make it work, and that explanation is confirmed by observation, you can quantify that phenomenon as being natural.
 
Can someone give an example of how God is *included *in scientific questions?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.
 
That would end Western civilization as we know it. We’d go from being a scientific and engineering based industrial culture back into the dark ages.
If I believe God created the world and man in six days, what will happen?

I’ll forget how to drive?
Use my cell phone?
Operate my computer?

Please be specific. I don’t think Western Civilization would end.

God bless,
Ed
 
If I believe God created the world and man in six days, what will happen?

I’ll forget how to drive?
Use my cell phone?
Operate my computer?

Please be specific. I don’t think Western Civilization would end.

God bless,
Ed
Deep down, we all know that God didn’t create the World in six days. Deep down, we all know that we are a bag of water and electrolytes.

Deep down, we all know that this is it.

If you had any real faith, if anyone had any real faith, I would not be able to dent it. The fact I can hurt you shows that deep down, you know that we’re a cartiligeonous reflex machine of the ape superfamily, nothing more. That’s all we’ll ever be. Here for a blink of an eye and no gurantees even then and then dead, dead, dead,
 
You have not hurt me as you claim. Now, you are stating your beliefs. I understand. We’re just bags of chemicals, we perform adaptive functions, or not, reproduce, maybe, and die.

Ho rules, no invisible man in the sky. Nothing.

So, why do you post here?

God bless,
Ed
 
Deep down, we all know that God didn’t create the World in six days. Deep down, we all know that we are a bag of water and electrolytes.

Deep down, we all know that this is it.

If you had any real faith, if anyone had any real faith, I would not be able to dent it. The fact I can hurt you shows that deep down, you know that we’re a cartiligeonous reflex machine of the ape superfamily, nothing more. That’s all we’ll ever be. Here for a blink of an eye and no gurantees even then and then dead, dead, dead,
You can speak for yourself, but deep down I do not agree with you.

I do not agree with your proposal that we are a bag of water and electrolytes, but since that goes down a road of what is a banned topic, I will have to wait for the ban to be lifted to debate you on it.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.
 
Let’s go back to the rock example. A plain rock exhibits no CSI. A rock with writing exhibits high amounts of CSI. A rock with a short story exhibits magnitudes more.

The odds are then calculated.
I don’t understand. How are the probabilities calculated? Why does writing indicate “CSI”? What is “CSI”? And how much does one word contribute? Bacteria have no words, at least in any human language, written on their surface. Does this mean that there is no chance that they have this “CSI”?
What ID the science is pursuing is how to better formulize it. It took a while to get the formula for gravity figured out too. We undertook the study because we observed the phenomena.
It would be fine to quantify something like this. I don’t know how to start.
I do not agree with your example.
Most people agree that chess pieces are designed. Both the unit and method of measure are as arbitrary as language or anything else I can imagine using. As far as I understand so far, why use words and not chess pieces, or car parts, or watch cogs? It’s even harder to know how to use parts of DNA; we know the mechanism by which car parts are made, but do we really understand how DNA was first made? I don’t know.
Let us look at features of language. No one would dispute that language symbols are not designed. So apply the odds.
I don’t see how. Also, I don’t see why language should be any measure of design.

Because of all these questions, I don’t have the first clue how to determine if something is “natural” or not, quantitatively. I don’t even know what the distinction is. Humans are natural, and they make cars, so cars arise from a natural process. So cars are natural too, right?
 
The image doesn’t show it clearly. But looking at red-shift data and analyzing for periodicity does.
Really? Says who? And how do we know?

By the way, this is redshift data, in part. Looks like a spider web to me.
 
Deep down, we all know that God didn’t create the World in six days. Deep down, we all know that we are a bag of water and electrolytes.

Deep down, we all know that this is it.

If you had any real faith, if anyone had any real faith, I would not be able to dent it. The fact I can hurt you shows that deep down, you know that we’re a cartiligeonous reflex machine of the ape superfamily, nothing more. That’s all we’ll ever be. Here for a blink of an eye and no gurantees even then and then dead, dead, dead,
In the spirit of Napoleon Dynamite: how could anyone possibly know this? As someone who does not (as far as I’m aware) know these things, I’m curious how you can trust what you “just know deep down”. It sounds like a dogma to me. Kind of like witches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top