J
jimmy85
Guest
hmm science can only be data and info not proves. science alone is not able to consider the existens of something spiritual at all.
Intelligent Design - What is the strongest evidence for it?
- Status
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Its too bad you didn’t see the show. Behe claims that irreductable complexity is what is wrong with evolutionary theory. He made this claim upon largely the work of another scientist who has spent his entire career studying some small celled creature. The creature has a mechanism called a little motor. Now Behe claims that the little motor contains several dozen parts, and the motor requires them all to be a motor…Behe says that all these pieces couldnt have mutatated at one time to just happen to then produce this motor.Of course it is. It is evidence for a complexity that was not formed in increments. Complexity itself is evidence for ID. Not proof, but evidence.
With all respect, citing Nova and a judge is hardly conclusive. I didn’t see Nova, but that judge’s remarks were so condescending. If you only look at the statements made by the judge and what the Discovery Institute proposes, one can reasonably see the judge was just advancing political nonsense.
I won’t continune in this thread if it is just going to be political talk. That is minor league stuff. But I would humbly withdraw if that is what the people want.
Now the scientist, sadly I dont recall his name, was interviewed on camera and discussed this. He said Behe is totally wrong about his assertions about his work. He showed on camera, another creature with several parts of its “motor” gone…It used the remaining structure in an entirely new way.
The bottom line, there is not such thing in science as irreductable complexity.
There was nothing condenscending about the Judge’s remarks that I heard. He was quite furious when he discovered the Discovery/ID people and the original board members who had pushed this **** were all lying and had lied under oath. That he got quite perturbed about.
The point about the judge was that he was inclined to side for the ID people given his was a bushie nominee and had passed their rigorous fundie test. You can travel around the net, there is a ton of buzz about the NOVA show. None of it bodes well for ID promoters.
R
ricmat
Guest
Spritmeadow said:
You have sadly misunderstood me at least. ID is not science. It cannot be proven. That does not mean it is not accurate. It means it is not science. It does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a religious or theology class. I personally believe in a form of ID that is compatible with evolution. I do not expect to prove to anyone that this is the case, because it cannot be proven.
My response:
Please accept my apologies. I got you mixed up with somebody else. A senior moment unfortunately.
I never proposed putting ID in the science curriculum. In fact, I said that what made sense to me was that the science curriculum should include the flaws which exist in the theory of evolution. Of which there are many.
I’d like to further add again that ID uses the same scientific evidence that e.g. evolution uses. It’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of interpretation. Since nobody has shown me an experiment where you start life somewhere, go off for a few million years and then come back to see if your predictions came true…then I contend that evolution is not provable either. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it makes it “just like ID”.
Spritimeadow said:
Well now you’ve gone off again into lala land. You cannot pull science into a theological discussion. So in reality you aren’t arguing for ID or even trying to claim that ID is science. you are really saying that science must bring God into its work. That is purely nonsense, IMO.
My response: You are correct that I was not trying to claim that ID is “science”. Actually, I was trying to pull theology into a scientific discussion and not vice versa
But I’ll assume that you are against that too. The process of integrating all understanding and knowledge is called philosophy, which is the attempt to understand all things - scientific and otherwise. It accepts a broader approach than the science axiom of “if I can’t measure it, then it doesn’t exist.”
I’m not saying that science MUST bring God into it’s work. I’m saying that it’s foolish (as in Wisdom 13) to spend your life investigating the art and science of our Creator, and refuse to actually see the Creator. Hey, this is a religious forum. Can’t I say that?
Science is not my God. How about you?
Spritmeadow said:
**I’m not sure what the ad hominem argument was added for. An otherwise civil debate is ruined by such sillyness. **
Again, accept my apologies. There was so much resistance to even consider reading these books (by another poster) that it seemed like that poster was not interested in learning anything beyond what he already knew. This part of my post was not directed at you. I also apologize for going off to la-la land, as you put it so civilly.
You have sadly misunderstood me at least. ID is not science. It cannot be proven. That does not mean it is not accurate. It means it is not science. It does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a religious or theology class. I personally believe in a form of ID that is compatible with evolution. I do not expect to prove to anyone that this is the case, because it cannot be proven.
My response:
Please accept my apologies. I got you mixed up with somebody else. A senior moment unfortunately.
I never proposed putting ID in the science curriculum. In fact, I said that what made sense to me was that the science curriculum should include the flaws which exist in the theory of evolution. Of which there are many.
I’d like to further add again that ID uses the same scientific evidence that e.g. evolution uses. It’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of interpretation. Since nobody has shown me an experiment where you start life somewhere, go off for a few million years and then come back to see if your predictions came true…then I contend that evolution is not provable either. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it makes it “just like ID”.
Spritimeadow said:
Well now you’ve gone off again into lala land. You cannot pull science into a theological discussion. So in reality you aren’t arguing for ID or even trying to claim that ID is science. you are really saying that science must bring God into its work. That is purely nonsense, IMO.
My response: You are correct that I was not trying to claim that ID is “science”. Actually, I was trying to pull theology into a scientific discussion and not vice versa
But I’ll assume that you are against that too. The process of integrating all understanding and knowledge is called philosophy, which is the attempt to understand all things - scientific and otherwise. It accepts a broader approach than the science axiom of “if I can’t measure it, then it doesn’t exist.”I’m not saying that science MUST bring God into it’s work. I’m saying that it’s foolish (as in Wisdom 13) to spend your life investigating the art and science of our Creator, and refuse to actually see the Creator. Hey, this is a religious forum. Can’t I say that?
Science is not my God. How about you?
Spritmeadow said:
**I’m not sure what the ad hominem argument was added for. An otherwise civil debate is ruined by such sillyness. **
Again, accept my apologies. There was so much resistance to even consider reading these books (by another poster) that it seemed like that poster was not interested in learning anything beyond what he already knew. This part of my post was not directed at you. I also apologize for going off to la-la land, as you put it so civilly.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Spritmeadow said:
You have sadly misunderstood me at least. ID is not science. It cannot be proven. That does not mean it is not accurate. It means it is not science. It does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a religious or theology class. I personally believe in a form of ID that is compatible with evolution. I do not expect to prove to anyone that this is the case, because it cannot be proven.
My response:
Please accept my apologies. I got you mixed up with somebody else. A senior moment unfortunately.
No problem
I never proposed putting ID in the science curriculum. In fact, I said that what made sense to me was that the science curriculum should include the flaws which exist in the theory of evolution. Of which there are many.
**I have no doubt there are. I would say evolution should be shown in the exact same manner than quantum physics or geology is. If its the norm to point out the failings of these disciplines so be it. If on the other hand, other discplines focus in teaching the basics on what has been proven, ignoring what has not…then so be that as well. The point I assume is clear…Its a science like any other. **
I’d like to further add again that ID uses the same scientific evidence that e.g. evolution uses. It’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of interpretation. Since nobody has shown me an experiment where you start life somewhere, go off for a few million years and then come back to see if your predictions came true…then I contend that evolution is not provable either. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it makes it “just like ID”.
I have no idea what you mean when you say ID uses the same evidence that evolution uses. Since ID is a religious explanation and not a scientific theory, I can hardly believe it uses the same evidence. What experiments does ID propose? what tests has it run? what verifiable proofs has it established in any discipline? You may interpret of course from many positions, however, that doesn’t mean that ID deserves a place alongside evolutionary theory within the same discipline.Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. Evolution makes no attempt to deal with how life started. You must of course learn the scientific definition on what a theory is and what constitutes “proveability”. It is in no way “just like ID”… Evolutionary models are predictive and can be tested. The DNA genome project did the most to prove conclusively that Darwin’s basic premise was correct.
Spritimeadow said:
Well now you’ve gone off again into lala land. You cannot pull science into a theological discussion. So in reality you aren’t arguing for ID or even trying to claim that ID is science. you are really saying that science must bring God into its work. That is purely nonsense, IMO.
My response: You are correct that I was not trying to claim that ID is “science”. Actually, I was trying to pull theology into a scientific discussion and not vice versa
Sure
I’m not saying that science MUST bring God into it’s work. I’m saying that it’s foolish (as in Wisdom 13) to spend your life investigating the art and science of our Creator, and refuse to actually see the Creator. Hey, this is a religious forum. Can’t I say that?
**Oh gosh, I see God in all of creation. Every single tiny bit. Someone I think quoted CS Lewis as saying…“expecting to “see” God’s design in his creation is a bit like expecting to see the archtect in a wall of the house he designed.” I believe I can, but I sure can’t prove it…Ultimately, I think Lewis may have said this too, or Chesterton,…science and theology must harmonize. I’m sure they will, but I don’t mistake what I believe from what I “know”. **
Science is not my God. How about you?
**Nope, seems a bit cold for my taste. **
R
ricmat
Guest
R
Richard_Powers
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
With all respect, with that kind of comment, you obviously didn’t follow the trial. Forget NOVA. Read the transcripts. The judge was condescending because he was presented with perjurous testimony, bad science and even worse testimony on the side of the defense. He could have been much, much harder than he was. By the way, Judge Jones is a political appointee of a conservative president following the nomination by a very conservative senator. He himself is obviously a very conservative person. What political point would you suggest he was pushing?
Peace
Tim
R
Richard_Powers
Guest
Federal judges are nominated and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Senators do not nominate judges.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Really? Behe spent so much time doing interviews favoring ID and then he equated it to astrology? Links please…
R
Richard_Powers
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Behe did not equate ID with astrology. He said that astrology could be labelled as a theory by a strict definition, as could ID, but he clearly said astrology was an “incorrect theory.” He did not say the same about ID. Why not at least teach it as a crutch to evolutionary theory.
His argument for teaching ID does not depend on an academic definition of theory any more than any other theory does.
Behe would call evolution a theory under the same definition, no? Empirical evidence. Yet should it be discarded from academia? According to the interrogator, that’s what you should conclude. The interrogator’s line of questioning was non-sensical, political showcasing.
The goal of the whole trial was to prevent teaching anything that has empirical evidence that might lead someone to believe in God, even if the “God” part were left out of the class.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Why not teach astology as a crutch to evolutionary theory? Just because Behe discards it a an “incorrect theory”? Astrology has exactly the same amount of scientific evidence supporting it as ID does regardless of Behe’s biased view of it.
No, the goal of the trial was to stop a school board that was intent on teaching creationism as science. Did you read the trial transcripts? They made it very clear that is what they were doing.
Peace
Tim
F
freesoulhope
Guest
In resepct of philosophy, evidence against, can serve as evidence for, by ruling out all other possibilities. Science, deals with nature, not supernature; so unfortunately; indirect “philosophical”, logic driven, evidence is as good as your going to get when dealing with “impressions” of supernatural intelligence. Personally I don’t really like the design argument because it really isn’t scientific; and because it has been misrepresented, it has lost its respectability (blame Behe). However it might serve as a good philosophical argument in collaboration with other logical deductive or inductive arguments.
Science, does not, and cannot, prove empirically, whether or not any other higher forms of reality exist beyond the boundary of time space and matter, because it’s a study of nature. However, because we are dealing with a very intelligible reality which has certain intrinsic behavioral and casual abilities, if one is to assume that the universe is all there is, we ultimately reach a causal paradox, which I call an “Omega Point”.(As quoted from my book that i am writing). An omega-point is reached when the existence or characteristics of any given object or body (the root of a thing) can no-longer be explained by its environment, its nature of being, or any factors of causation that we know of in nature today. It is Omega, because it reaches the end of its explanatory value; which basically means that one reaches a boundary, which makes natural events imposible.
Science can know that a thing can give rise to another thing or body, precisely because at the foundation of its very being there is order or a"root nature" that does not change, which determines the behavior of a given object. This “root order” is the reason why we don’t expect a pink elephant to pop out of nowhere. Science can say that all stages of material being are different states of energy in one form or another; but science cannot explain why energy has a root order, that gives rise to any given state in relation to space time. This is because, the next step in the casual chain, takes necessarily an inescabably takes us beyond nature into a realm that isn’t suppose to exist; its call “super nature” or supernatural.
Lets reasonably assume for instance that a “root order” is what makes time space and energy act as they do, working in perfect casual unity; if a “root order” is the basis for the chain of cause and effect, and is the foundation of a kind of instinctual behavior, found in energy including any given structure which makes up the universe and supports its continued existence as a whole, then we are left with no causal basis, from a material standpoint, which logically explains the existence of that “Root-Order”; which has given rise to the universe as we know it.
Science can only work with nature. It can show that certain states are actualized given a set or circumstances or random events, but it cannot explain the foundation or intrinsic behavior of those events through the consequences of any given actualization. At best science can only point to an underlying order that makes scientific enquiry possible.
This is not just another “God of the gaps argument”. Any good Naturalist philosopher is quite aware of these Omega-points, which are riddled through out our reality. They avoid there supernatural implications by calling them “Brute facts”, something that we just have to except as being a necessary uncaused part of are reality. It’s quite simply a plea of infinite ignorance, a sort of agnosticism, because they know that science can never find a natural explanation for something that unavoidably takes us beyond nature in the causal chain; and they refuse to compromise their own position, as naturalists, by taking the next step in the casual chain to the only reasonable conclusion for the existence of anything.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Continued…
A computer programmer can symbolize a blue balloon by the nature of**“7”**. The nature of seven (the balloons underlying “natural” foundation or medium by which it is actualised), can be found, through close emprical observation, to actualize the blue balloon, whether that be through chance or necessity. But the nature of the blue balloon, can say nothing about the nature of the number 7; and there is nothing very special about the number 7 that helps it to serve as an “ultimate foundation” in the chain of causation; since the number itself demands an explanation, because it is united with with the finite time state of the blue balloon. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the nature of the blue balloon can only be accounted for by something that goes beyond the nature of the number 7, including the time and space of the balloon, to a "timeless" nature that necessarily breaks the chain of cause and affect (being a founding reality that is not subject to time, and therefore breaking the chain of cause and effect, which is related to time). In other words, in order for the blue balloon to be real, it needs a designer and a transcendent idea or form to support its actualization; since the number only serves to actualize the blue balloon’s given state, but cannot ultimately design it or give it nature being only a number that is apart of the same nature, which is represented as a blue balloon. By this we can reasonably gain the correct impression that there is a computer programmer that is ultimately behind the design of the blue balloon, rather then settling for the number 7.
A computer programmer can symbolize a blue balloon by the nature of**“7”**. The nature of seven (the balloons underlying “natural” foundation or medium by which it is actualised), can be found, through close emprical observation, to actualize the blue balloon, whether that be through chance or necessity. But the nature of the blue balloon, can say nothing about the nature of the number 7; and there is nothing very special about the number 7 that helps it to serve as an “ultimate foundation” in the chain of causation; since the number itself demands an explanation, because it is united with with the finite time state of the blue balloon. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the nature of the blue balloon can only be accounted for by something that goes beyond the nature of the number 7, including the time and space of the balloon, to a "timeless" nature that necessarily breaks the chain of cause and affect (being a founding reality that is not subject to time, and therefore breaking the chain of cause and effect, which is related to time). In other words, in order for the blue balloon to be real, it needs a designer and a transcendent idea or form to support its actualization; since the number only serves to actualize the blue balloon’s given state, but cannot ultimately design it or give it nature being only a number that is apart of the same nature, which is represented as a blue balloon. By this we can reasonably gain the correct impression that there is a computer programmer that is ultimately behind the design of the blue balloon, rather then settling for the number 7.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Numerous posters here have given you exactly what you asked for…evidence.
You have changed your original request and asked for proof.
Proof cannot be given.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
What’s the name of that other planet that has trees and grass and bushes and flowers and birds and a perfect atmosphere and water and abundant life etc etc etc. You know! that other planet, not earth but, the other planet or planets. It must be in that other galaxy, you know… the one where the perfect planet is at an ideal distance from the sun and has a moon which is just the right size so that when it comes in line with the sun it covers it perfectly (not too large or not too small) to make an eclipse.
Gee!!??
I guess science hasn’t proven that there is that “other” planet. Just a bunch of speculation and probablities.If you pull the book off of your nose - you’ll be able to read the words.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps we should only allow emperical science to be taught in science class.
We could add a class called theory, one called metaphysics and philosophy.
Then a student would be well rounded.
We could add a class called theory, one called metaphysics and philosophy.
Then a student would be well rounded.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I perused the transcript and am familiar with the judge’s comments. So what if we’re both right and both sides were politically charged? One of them was declared a “winner.” I would say that doesn’t really amount to justice.
- Status