ID KO'd in Pennsylvania

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Then why isn’t that limitation placed on science in the schools?

What limitation are you refering to?

Why is their a presupposition that everything that is explainable must have a natural cause?

Because, like it or not, that is what science is. Science is the study of nature, not the supernatural.

Why is science supreme over philosophy?

Because the issue at hand is a science class, not a philosophy class

Is this not the result of a materialistic mindset?

No, it is the result of wanting a quality science curriculum for their children.

Is it not true that humans have a materialstic component and a spiritual component? Why must the spiritual (non-empirically provable) be ignored in institutions of learning?

Your argument should be for the establishment of a philosophy curriculum rather than breaking down the science curriculum.

Why should only part of the truth be taught and the other censored?

Nothing is being censored. Read the decision.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Then you would say:
reason = God
science cannot find God

So science is not part of the equation and can never be?

I would say that God is outside the realm of science.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

This judge used precedent in his ruling. His job is to make a ruling on the case he was presented in accordance with rulings made by other federal courts. Would you like him to become an activist judge and make his ruling based on his personal beliefs?

Besides, you are just mad because he affirmed what we have been telling you on these forums for some time now.

Peace

Tim

Precedent can be in itself activist.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I would say that God is outside the realm of science.

Peace

Tim

That is an opinion, no? But could it be? Maybe we just haven’t found a way to measure.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

That is an opinion, no? But could it be? Maybe we just haven’t found a way to measure.

It is not an opinion because science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. The only way to test for God using science would be to accept a supernatural explaination of the data.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Precedent can be in itself activist.

As a District Court judge, his job is to rule in accordance with precedent. Should he ignore precedent if his personal opinion is that precedent is wrong? Is that not what activist judges do?

Peace

Tim

 

[SamCA]

buffalo:

Tim, you seem to be an innovative and learned guy. Open your mind for a minute and make some suggestions.

How might we find God through science?

This is, of course, a huge part of the reason that ID has been, apart from a few cranks, universally dismissed in scientific circles – because no one has been able to propose a single experiment to test whether or not it’s a valid theory. Not one. A bunch of scientific institutions have offered to provide venues for such experiments; not a single one has been forthcoming.

By contrast, there are loads of experiments you can do to test the validity of evolutionary theory. (And, by the by, the results just so happen to support said theory.)

That said, I actually do agree with you at the fundamental level. I think that if God exists, we should be able to find evidence of him in the world. So far, nobody’s found anything, but speaking purely speculatively, you’d think a designed universe should have some empirical hallmarks of being designed. God’s fingerprints, if you will.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

It is not an opinion because science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. The only way to test for God using science would be to accept a supernatural explaination of the data.

Peace

Tim

I am not trying to change the definition of science.

No - what I am getting to is if science finds a natural way to find God. Science deals with natural handiworks of God daily.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

As a District Court judge, his job is to rule in accordance with precedent. Should he ignore precedent if his personal opinion is that precedent is wrong? Is that not what activist judges do?

Peace

Tim

I am not looking for an activist judge at all. Just one who inteprets the Constitution. If bad precedent has been set, then I would expect that a correct reading of the Constitution correct the error, rather than compunding the error to eternity.

 

[Lance]

Orogeny:

As a District Court judge, his job is to rule in accordance with precedent. Should he ignore precedent if his personal opinion is that precedent is wrong? Is that not what activist judges do?

Peace

Tim

Then he could rule that slavery is legal because there are plenty of precedents that say it is. That does not make it right. If a precedent is based on bad legal grounds then it is bad and should not be used in further legal arguments.

 

[buffalo]

SamCA:

T

That said, I actually do agree with you at the fundamental level. I think that if God exists, we should be able to find evidence of him in the world. So far, nobody’s found anything, but speaking purely speculatively, you’d think a designed universe should have some empirical hallmarks of being designed. God’s fingerprints, if you will.

Perhaps as science and learning progress we will indeed find them. If we do not see past the horizon now because of our limited sight, should we stop searching?

 

[SamCA]

buffalo:

I am not looking for an activist judge at all. Just one who inteprets the Constitution. If bad precedent has been set, then I would expect that a correct reading of the Constitution correct the error, rather than compunding the error to eternity.

I may be mistaken, but I think that only the Supreme Court of the US has the authority to interpret the constitution. All the lower courts have to abide by the standing, current interpretations.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

I am not trying to change the definition of science.

No - what I am getting to is if science finds a natural way to find God. Science deals with natural handiworks of God daily.

I know that you aren’t trying to change the definition of science. You and I have had a sufficient number of conversations for me to think I understand you at least a little bit!

I don’t know about finding God throught science. I think that, as a Christian, I see the beauty of God in His creation. There is little chance, I think, of a non-believer to find God in science by itself, though.

Peace

Tim

 

[SamCA]

buffalo:

Perhaps as science and learning progress we will indeed find them. If we do not see past the horizon now because of our limited sight, should we stop searching?

Of course not. And no one is suggesting that we should – except for the Intelligent Design people. That’s the problem with the idea of ID as a “scientific theory.”

People have this idea that Darwin wrote his book, and scientists everywhere just said, “OK, cool, let’s go with that.” They didn’t. They have performed more experiments to test the validity of Darwin’s ideas than have been performed in almost any other area of science; the result has been that we’ve found that Darwin was wrong about a lot of the details, but that an overarcing evolutionary process is indisputably shown to have happened by every empirical measure we’ve ever been able to find.

But here’s the key bit – they still haven’t stopped. To this day, we’re still examining the evidence, trying to find holes in the theory and see if they stand up to scrutiny, because that would mean we’re still not there yet and that the theory could still be more accurate.

Under the current system, if we can’t figure out how the eye formed, we spend decades – centuries, if necessary – trying our very best to work out exactly how the eye could possibly have happened. Hopefully, eventually, we work it out. If the answer turns out to be incompatible with evolutionary theory as we know it, we will amend the evolutionary theory. (So far, however, the eye doesn’t seem to fit that standard.)

Under ID theory, you just say, “See! The eye couldn’t have evolved! God must have done it!”, call it a day, and go on home.

If scientists ever do find hard evidence of a designed universe, believe me, they’ll trumpet it to the rafters. It’d be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of our species. The scientist who made that discovery would be remembered for as long as our civilization survives, if not longer. (Although I suspect that if such evidence is ever found, it’ll be found in the field of either astronomical or quantum physics – or string theory, maybe – rather than evolutionary biology.)

But so far, no one’s found that evidence. The problem with ID is that it pretends we have, in a very unscientific way.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I know that you aren’t trying to change the definition of science. You and I have had a sufficient number of conversations for me to think I understand you at least a little bit!

I don’t know about finding God throught science. I think that, as a Christian, I see the beauty of God in His creation. There is little chance, I think, of a non-believer to find God in science by itself, though.

Peace

Tim

We can however find God through reason alone. Isn’t science a subset of reason?

 

[Orogeny]

Lance:

Then he could rule that slavery is legal because there are plenty of precedents that say it is. That does not make it right. If a precedent is based on bad legal grounds then it is bad and should not be used in further legal arguments.

Well, SamCA beat me to my point. The District Judge’s job is not to change or set precedent, but to follow precedent. He did his job. If the school board chooses, it can appeal to the Court of Appeals. When it loses there, it can appeal to the Supreme Court. If they choose to hear the case, they can change the precedent if they so choose.

By the way, I doubt very seriously that the board will appeal. Not only did they spend a lot of money for their defense, they will now have to pay the plaintifs costs as well. Additionally, the board that put this foolish policy in place was overwhelmingly defeated in the most recent decision.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

SamCA:

Of course not. And no one is suggesting that we should – except for the Intelligent Design people. That’s the problem with the idea of ID as a “scientific theory.”

People have this idea that Darwin wrote his book, and scientists everywhere just said, “OK, cool, let’s go with that.” They didn’t. They have performed more experiments to test the validity of Darwin’s ideas than have been performed in almost any other area of science; the result has been that we’ve found that Darwin was wrong about a lot of the details, but that an overarcing evolutionary process is indisputably shown to have happened by every empirical measure we’ve ever been able to find.

But here’s the key bit – they still haven’t stopped. To this day, we’re still examining the evidence, trying to find holes in the theory and see if they stand up to scrutiny, because that would mean we’re still not there yet and that the theory could still be more accurate.

Under the current system, if we can’t figure out how the eye formed, we spend decades – centuries, if necessary – trying our very best to work out exactly how the eye could possibly have happened. Hopefully, eventually, we work it out. If the answer turns out to be incompatible with evolutionary theory as we know it, we will amend the evolutionary theory. (So far, however, the eye doesn’t seem to fit that standard.)

Under ID theory, you just say, “See! The eye couldn’t have evolved! God must have done it!”, call it a day, and go on home.

If scientists ever do find hard evidence of a designed universe, believe me, they’ll trumpet it to the rafters. It’d be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of our species. The scientist who made that discovery would be remembered for as long as our civilization survives, if not longer. (Although I suspect that if such evidence is ever found, it’ll be found in the field of either astronomical or quantum physics – or string theory, maybe – rather than evolutionary biology.)

But so far, no one’s found that evidence. The problem with ID is that it pretends we have, in a very unscientific way.

And this all begs the question - if God will not allow a limited human with his 5 senses to emperically prove Him, then we need to change the lens we are looking through. Science then has a very limited human way of trying to find Him.

But in the same way scientists dismiss ID and call it a day and go home.

Why not continue to fund and investigate the ID theory? Dismissing it at its outset is certainly not open minded and the faith in science trumps this new way of trying to find God.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

We can however find God through reason alone. Isn’t science a subset of reason?

I don’t know. This is a little too philosophical for me today.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

And this all begs the question - if God will not allow a limited human with his 5 senses to emperically prove Him, then we need to change the lens we are looking through. Science then has a very limited human way of trying to find Him.

See, that is where you and I disagree. I don’t believe that the goal of science is to find God, just as geometry or economics or spelling are not tools to find God.

But in the same way scientists dismiss ID and call it a day and go home.

Actually, ID has nothing to dismiss. There is no evidence presented to debate.

Why not continue to fund and investigate the ID theory? Dismissing it at its outset is certainly not open minded and the faith in science trumps this new way of trying to find God.

I have no problem with a continued effort to investigate ID theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[SamCA]

buffalo:

And this all begs the question - if God will not allow a limited human with his 5 senses to emperically prove Him, then we need to change the lens we are looking through.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that science should operate at more than just the empirical level?

But in the same way scientists dismiss ID and call it a day and go home.

Why not continue to fund and investigate the ID theory? Dismissing it at its outset is certainly not open minded and the faith in science trumps this new way of trying to find God.

But they have tried. A lot of big scientific journals, in the past couple years, have made requests for actual experiments that could be done to test the intelligent design theory the way they’ve tested evolutionary theory.

Nobody – even the staunch ID supporters – has been able to come up with any such experiments.