G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Leela
Guest
I am not aware of any such “rage” about multiverses. To me it sounds like idle speculation, but I’m not a physicist. Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?I am impressed by your notion that unverifiable theories should not be taught as theories. So I hope for your sake that atheists in the classroom will not throw out the notion of multiple universes as a way to get around the Big Bang theory of our universe’s origin, a theory that is consistent with the Christian idea of creation.
But I’m inclined to think that the theory of multiverses has somehow become all the rage among atheists, though there is not one scintilla of evidence to verify it. It is a way of sneaking an infinite (and therefore eternal and godless) universe in through the back door. And I would fully expect the theory to be mentioned by atheist teachers in the classroom when they are discussing the Big Bang.
And please don’t tell me you don’t think they would.
BTW, I can’t see how Big Bang is any more consistent with Christianity than any other theory. Once you posit a supernatural creator, any sort of “design” would have be consistent with that idea.
For example, as Creationists argue, the Garden of Eden was not some brand new undeveloped real estate with some new seeds planted. It had fully developed vegetation and rocks that would have appeared to be much older than they are even on the first day though they had just been created. God could have buried all the dinosaur bones and made them look so old just to test our faith. It is always possible to reconcile the view that whatever creation story of whatever religion is consistent with what we observe, so long as we are willing to believe that God could be making things appear to be other than what they are to test our faith.
Best,
Leela
V
Valke2
Guest
Without multiverses, the entire Star Trek franchise would collapse.
There’s a teaching in Judaism, btw, that says God created other universes before ours and that ours is as good as it gets, more or less. That would include universes where man did not sin. This teaching/midrash is an attempt to explain free will and evil acts, If I am remembering correctly.
There’s a teaching in Judaism, btw, that says God created other universes before ours and that ours is as good as it gets, more or less. That would include universes where man did not sin. This teaching/midrash is an attempt to explain free will and evil acts, If I am remembering correctly.
V
Valke2
Guest
Do you believe that God created fossils to test our faith and that dinosaurs never existed? What would be the purpose of such a test?I am not aware of any such “rage” about multiverses. To me it sounds like idle speculation, but I’m not a physicist. Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?
BTW, I can’t see how Big Bang is any more consistent with Christianity than any other theory. Once you posit a supernatural creator, any sort of “design” would have be consistent with that idea.
For example, as Creationists argue, the Garden of Eden was not some brand new undeveloped real estate with some new seeds planted. It had fully developed vegetation and rocks that would have appeared to be much older than they are even on the first day though they had just been created. God could have buried all the dinosaur bones and made them look so old just to test our faith. It is always possible to reconcile the view that whatever creation story of whatever religion is consistent with what we observe, so long as we are willing to believe that God could be making things appear to be other than what they are to test our faith.
L
Leela
Guest
No, I don’t believe that. My point is that regardless of what science reveals about the world, whatever is observed could be considered consistent with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) if you are willing to believe that God poses such tests of faith.Do you believe that God created fossils to test our faith and that dinosaurs never existed?
Though I can’t see the point of such tests, others apparently think that God does such things.What would be the purpose of such a test?
Many on this forum have answered my questions in the past about why God, if he exists, does not provide more convincing and less ambiguous evidence of his existence. They answer that if such evidence were presented there would be no need for faith, and that God wants us to believe based on pre-scientific age reports of miracles in ancient books rather than, say, changing the faces of Mt Rushmore to the faces of the last four popes.
Best,
Leela
V
Valke2
Guest
Ok. Can’t argue with that. Unless there’s a religion that teaches God never imposes tests of faith)No, I don’t believe that. My point is that regardless of what science reveals about the world, whatever is observed could be considered consistent with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) if you are willing to believe that God poses such tests of faith.
Faith gets a lot of play in religious discussions and often mistakenly as a fallback position to explain why there exists things or situations which run contrary to one’s theology. My own definition of faith, as I have said elsewhere, is “acknowleding that someone’s belief in God may actually be closer to the truth than mine, and choosing to follow my definition in light of this knowledge.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Gottle of Geer
*
How could multiverses in any way affect this ?*
The discussion was centered not on whether such universes existed, but whether there was one scintilla of evidence for a theory of them. Leela had argued that such theories should not be taught without evidence. My view is that they are already being mentioned in science classes (without evidence) as alternatives to the single universe theory.
Please but down your Gottle and pay attention to the discussion.
Thank you!
*
How could multiverses in any way affect this ?*
The discussion was centered not on whether such universes existed, but whether there was one scintilla of evidence for a theory of them. Leela had argued that such theories should not be taught without evidence. My view is that they are already being mentioned in science classes (without evidence) as alternatives to the single universe theory.
Please but down your Gottle and pay attention to the discussion.
Thank you!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?
It does no such thing. Stop guessing. Please acknowledge that there is not one scintillia of evidence that other universes exist, and therefore should not be seriously entertained as theories of the origin of our universe. Otherwise you will have to accept that ID, without verifiable proof, can be seriously entertained as an explanation for evolution.
Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?
It does no such thing. Stop guessing. Please acknowledge that there is not one scintillia of evidence that other universes exist, and therefore should not be seriously entertained as theories of the origin of our universe. Otherwise you will have to accept that ID, without verifiable proof, can be seriously entertained as an explanation for evolution.
V
Valke2
Guest
I don’t know what school your kids go to, but mine aren’t being taught multiverse science.Leela
Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?
It does no such thing. Stop guessing. Please acknowledge that there is not one scintillia of evidence that other universes exist, and therefore should not be seriously entertained as theories of the origin of our universe. Otherwise you will have to accept that ID, without verifiable proof, can be seriously entertained as an explanation for evolution.
V
Valke2
Guest
The WMAP Cold Spot or CMB Cold Spot is a region of the sky seen in microwaves which is unusually large and cold relative to the expected properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own,
L
Leela
Guest
I’ve never had any interest in such ideas or heard much about them before. Why is the idea so interesting (threatening?) to you? No one is defending the idea, yet you keep attacking it. This thread is about ID, not mutiverses.Leela
Perhaps positing other universes helps make some of the math work out?
It does no such thing. Stop guessing. Please acknowledge that there is not one scintillia of evidence that other universes exist, and therefore should not be seriously entertained as theories of the origin of our universe. Otherwise you will have to accept that ID, without verifiable proof, can be seriously entertained as an explanation for evolution.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
This thread is about ID, not mutiverses.
Patently false. Read the title of the thread. It is not about ID but about whether ID should be taught in schools. You clearly take the view that there is nothing verifiable in it. I am only questioning whether your view is consistent, and whether you would oppose teachers even mentioning multiverses, for which there is even less verifiability than ID, though yes multiverse is a common explanation by atheists for the origin of the universe when they are confronted by the evidence of a creation moment (Big Bang) which is consistent with Genesis. Atheists will do anything to restore an infinite and eternal universe, including giving up on the idea that every proof must be verifiable (their favorite complaint about proofs for the existence of God and the soul). But I guess if you are going to pretend that atheists don’t seize on multiverses as if it were a credible answer to a finite and created universe, that is your prerogative.
But please don’t suggest that maybe multiverses somehow help with the math. Get a grip on real science and stop with the fantasies.
BTW, I can’t see how Big Bang is any more consistent with Christianity than any other theory.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”
Patently false. Read the title of the thread. It is not about ID but about whether ID should be taught in schools. You clearly take the view that there is nothing verifiable in it. I am only questioning whether your view is consistent, and whether you would oppose teachers even mentioning multiverses, for which there is even less verifiability than ID, though yes multiverse is a common explanation by atheists for the origin of the universe when they are confronted by the evidence of a creation moment (Big Bang) which is consistent with Genesis. Atheists will do anything to restore an infinite and eternal universe, including giving up on the idea that every proof must be verifiable (their favorite complaint about proofs for the existence of God and the soul). But I guess if you are going to pretend that atheists don’t seize on multiverses as if it were a credible answer to a finite and created universe, that is your prerogative.
But please don’t suggest that maybe multiverses somehow help with the math. Get a grip on real science and stop with the fantasies.
BTW, I can’t see how Big Bang is any more consistent with Christianity than any other theory.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”
L
Leela
Guest
Oh my gosh! The Bible predicts the Big Bang theory with uncanny specificity! But doesn’t God first create the heavens and the earth before lights (the Big Bang)?Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”
All this is irrelevant. You are getting hysterical about multiverses being taught in schools when no one is proposing teaching multiverses as an alternative theory to the Big Bang theory.
This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. What is your opinion on the matter?
Best,
Leela
V
Valke2
Guest
no. It shouldn’t be taught in school. Certainly it shouldn’t be part of the cirriculim.Oh my gosh! The Bible predicts the Big Bang theory with uncanny specificity! But doesn’t God first create the heavens and the earth before lights (the Big Bang)?
All this is irrelevant. You are getting hysterical about multiverses being taught in schools when no one is proposing teaching multiverses as an alternative theory to the Big Bang theory.
This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. What is your opinion on the matter?
Best,
Leela
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
The light being talked about here is not the light of the sun and the moon, as they were not created until the 4th day.
*This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. *
Granted.
What is your opinion on the matter?
I think it should be taught if the contrary is being taught … if it is taught that evolution is a random process without design.
To teach that is to teach atheism … and I think it is not lawful to teach atheism in the public schools. It would be fine with me if atheists started their own schools and taught atheism … but they have no business teaching anything to Christians that is distinctly opposed to what they believe … namely, that the universe was created with a plan. The atheist argues there is no plan, that we are only accidents of nature. … that the universe has no purpose.
Now tell me. When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose … or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?
Code:
*In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day.**This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. *
Granted.
What is your opinion on the matter?
I think it should be taught if the contrary is being taught … if it is taught that evolution is a random process without design.
To teach that is to teach atheism … and I think it is not lawful to teach atheism in the public schools. It would be fine with me if atheists started their own schools and taught atheism … but they have no business teaching anything to Christians that is distinctly opposed to what they believe … namely, that the universe was created with a plan. The atheist argues there is no plan, that we are only accidents of nature. … that the universe has no purpose.
Now tell me. When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose … or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
The light being talked about here is not the light of the sun and the moon, as they were not created until the 4th day.
*This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. *
Granted.
What is your opinion on the matter?
I think ID should be taught if the contrary is being taught … if it is taught that evolution is a random process without design. It should be taught as a reasonable possibility, rather than as an empirical fact.
To teach only that evolution is random is to teach atheism … and I think it is not lawful to teach atheism in the public schools. It would be fine with me if atheists started their own schools and taught atheism … but they have no business teaching anything to Christians that is distinctly opposed to what their religion believe … namely, that the universe was created with a plan. The atheist argues there is no plan, that we are only accidents of nature. … that the universe has no purpose. If that is the thrust of evolution, then teaching that violates the First Amendment protection to follow our religion without government intrusion (public schools).
Now tell me. When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose … or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?
Code:
*In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day.**This thread is about whether ID should be taught in school. *
Granted.
What is your opinion on the matter?
I think ID should be taught if the contrary is being taught … if it is taught that evolution is a random process without design. It should be taught as a reasonable possibility, rather than as an empirical fact.
To teach only that evolution is random is to teach atheism … and I think it is not lawful to teach atheism in the public schools. It would be fine with me if atheists started their own schools and taught atheism … but they have no business teaching anything to Christians that is distinctly opposed to what their religion believe … namely, that the universe was created with a plan. The atheist argues there is no plan, that we are only accidents of nature. … that the universe has no purpose. If that is the thrust of evolution, then teaching that violates the First Amendment protection to follow our religion without government intrusion (public schools).
Now tell me. When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose … or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Atheist Richard Dawkins writes.
Aha, so God and therefore Intelligent Design is improbable but multiverses are not!
Code:
*The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable.*
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
By the way, former atheist Antony Flew in the interview below indicates he finds substantial scientific evidence to promotr both the Cosmological and the Teleological (Intelligent Design) proofs.
biola.edu/antonyflew/page4.cfm
At the top of page 4 he still hopes there is no afterlife. Wonder why.
biola.edu/antonyflew/page4.cfm
At the top of page 4 he still hopes there is no afterlife. Wonder why.
R
ricmat
Guest
Here’s an article just posted today by one of the Discovery.org ID guys.
Those who believe that ID is the same as young earth creationism would do well to read it.
excerpts:
His position seems reasonable to me.
Those who believe that ID is the same as young earth creationism would do well to read it.
excerpts:
I believe that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and the universe is ~14 billion years old. Universal common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the evidence, and life evolved over several billion years. Some aspects of life arose by random variation and natural selection, and some aspects of life (e.g. the genetic code, molecular nanotechnology) show evidence for design by intelligent agency.
snip…
He also explains why he thinks Darwinism (I use the term loosely) should also NOT be taught on the public dime. See the article for details.I believe that teaching public schoolchildren that the first two chapters of Genesis are literally true as science is unconstitutional, because it would constitute teaching a particular form of theistic religion on the public dime.
His position seems reasonable to me.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
He also explains why he thinks Darwinism (I use the term loosely) should also NOT be taught on the public dime. See the article for details.
Odd then, that you didn’t explain it. If you understand it, why not post it here so we can see what it says?His position seems reasonable to me.
Why should his religious objections be sufficient to stop science from being taught in science classes?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.