What is Intelligent Design

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

That open-ended charge is often made, but never substantiated. Scientists, like everyone else, are human and have human flaws, but the scientific community has not behaved as you claim.

yes, it has. in every single one of the examples i gave earlier, the scientific community was led to rejecting perfectly good theories simply because of their failure to coincide with the considered opinions of certain of those in the relevant disciplines who disagreed. for example, bohr had a massively forceful personality which cowed opposition quite often simply because of that forcefulness rather than any particularly incisive criticisms.

von neumann was a revered mathematician, so citicisms of his work failed to gain any traction in the community.

and so on.

look, man - the “scientific community” is a loose grouping of disparate disciplines, each of which typically takes the currently accepted model of the other disciplines at face-value; and in this, it follows the general pattern of testimonial credulity that is our most fecund source of knowledge. i mean, let’s face it, where would any of us be if we actually had to go out and verify everyone’s work before we were able to form reasonable beliefs?

as a result, the “scientific community” accepted bad theories simply because a few icons in the particular disciplines rejected the better ones for bad reasons.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

And that is different from automatically dismissing the science, how?

It may be more appropriate to say they question that in science which is called factual which has many doubtful or unproven components.

Because we live in a scientific suremacy society, and more generally a secular suremacy society, all it takes is to label something as science and it is untouchable. In fact, any theory that might contradict the “science” is not allowed, such as a theory from philosophy or theology or even a contradictory scientific opinion.

All they are saying is allow alternatve viewpoints in schools.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

It may be more appropriate to say they question that in science which is called factual which has many doubtful or unproven components.

Because we live in a scientific suremacy society, and more generally a secular suremacy society, all it takes is to label something as science and it is untouchable. In fact, any theory that might contradict the “science” is not allowed, such as a theory from philosophy or theology or even a contradictory scientific opinion.

All they are saying is allow alternatve viewpoints in schools.

What does that mean? Are we to teach the children things for which we have no evidence? Are we to force a fundamentalist religion down their throats?

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

What does that mean? Are we to teach the children things for which we have no evidence? Are we to force a fundamentalist religion down their throats?

Nope. We are to teach theory as theory and fact as fact. We are to allow opposing opinions and theories in science class. And it wouldn’t hurt to teach some philosophy as a seperate class as well as theologies of different religions.

This is a better alternative than to force fundamentalist evolutioniary theory down their throats in combination with restricting religious expression.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

What does that mean? Are we to teach the children things for which we have no evidence? Are we to force a fundamentalist religion down their throats?

No - in any case. Purify the current teaching of science to the things absolutely proved by science. If you need to inform them about current theories they should be labeled as such or mentioned in an entirely different course title, such as current scientific theories, supernatural aspects, etc…

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

yes, it has. in every single one of the examples i gave earlier, the scientific community was led to rejecting perfectly good theories simply because of their failure to coincide with the considered opinions of certain of those in the relevant disciplines who disagreed. for example, bohr had a massively forceful personality which cowed opposition quite often simply because of that forcefulness rather than any particularly incisive criticisms.

von neumann was a revered mathematician, so citicisms of his work failed to gain any traction in the community.

and so on.

look, man - the “scientific community” is a loose grouping of disparate disciplines, each of which typically takes the currently accepted model of the other disciplines at face-value; and in this, it follows the general pattern of testimonial credulity that is our most fecund source of knowledge. i mean, let’s face it, where would any of us be if we actually had to go out and verify everyone’s work before we were able to form reasonable beliefs?

as a result, the “scientific community” accepted bad theories simply because a few icons in the particular disciplines rejected the better ones for bad reasons.

I couldn’t have summed up the “creation science” argument better – in a nutshell it’s, “Science isn’t always right, so you have to belive us.”

And the response is, “Show me your evidence.” With “creatioin science,” it’s always the attacks on the scientists, never any evidence to prove they have a valid position.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

And the response is, “Show me your evidence.” With “creatioin science,” it’s always the attacks on the scientists, never any evidence to prove they have a valid position.

I’ve been finding the converse to be at least equally true. Credentials are the first thing to be attacked. If that won’t work, go after their Christian-bias regardless of credentials.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Nope. We are to teach theory as theory and fact as fact. We are to allow opposing opinions and theories in science class. And it wouldn’t hurt to teach some philosophy as a seperate class as well as theologies of different religions.

This is a better alternative than to force fundamentalist evolutioniary theory down their throats in combination with restricting religious expression.

Okay, what “facts” are we to teach that we aren’t teaching?

What theories (and I mean theories backed by facts) are we not teaching?

When someone stands up and says, “The earth is only 4004 years old” we are not obligated to teach that, or to regard it with the same status as other opinions that are backed by solid facts, any more than we are obliged to teach 2+2=5 just because someone might think it’s 5.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

I’ve been finding the converse to be at least equally true. Credentials are the first thing to be attacked. If that won’t work, go after their Christian-bias regardless of credentials.

That’s funny, because I’ve said over and over in this thread “Show me your evidence.” No one has come forward – but they HAVE attacked science and scientists.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

Okay, what “facts” are we to teach that we aren’t teaching?

I didn’t say we needed to teach facts we are not teaching. I said that we are teaching too many theories as facts that are highly doubtful.
vern humphrey:

What theories (and I mean theories backed by facts) are we not teaching?

I’m not demanding that evolutionary theories be backed up by facts as long as they are simply described as just theories and doubtful opinions of reputable scientists are also allowed.

To be fair, we should also allow alternate theories in philosophy or theology classes.
vern humphrey:

When someone stands up and says, “The earth is only 4004 years old” we are not obligated to teach that, or to regard it with the same status as other opinions that are backed by solid facts, any more than we are obliged to teach 2+2=5 just because someone might think it’s 5.

I agree. I’m suggesting we stop teaching other opinions that are not backed up by facts.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

That’s funny, because I’ve said over and over in this thread “Show me your evidence.” No one has come forward – but they HAVE attacked science and scientists.

That may be true, but, like I say, I see the converse high up in the scientific and educational communities - like a blanket cover of secular based evolutionary theory.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

I didn’t say we needed to teach facts we are not teaching. I said that we are teaching too many theories as facts that are highly doubtful. .

Such as?

Brad:

I’m not demanding that evolutionary theories be backed up by facts as long as they are simply described as just theories and doubtful opinions of reputable scientists are also allowed. .

Are you saying, “throw out the facts and just present opinions?” Because that’s what it seems like.

Right now, we teach what a scientific theory is (the highest form of scientific approach to certainty) and show the facts for those theories.

Brad:

To be fair, we should also allow alternate theories in philosophy or theology classes…

Here you seem to be talking about college-level courses (few high schools I know teach either philosophy or theology)

Brad:

I agree. I’m suggesting we stop teaching other opinions that are not backed up by facts.

Then by and large we’re there – we teach scietific theories AS scientific theories, and back them up with facts. Speculation based on non-scientific matter is left for the churches.

 

[jdnation]

Vern>I hate to say it, but that’s a typical dodge – you don’t address both sides of the equation. One side is that many fossil plants and animals are no longer to be found on earth. The other side is that many living plants and animals are not found in the fossil record. This clearly shows that the life forms have “turned over” – one set replacing an earlier set. And this has happened more than once.

What? I’m not supposed to address anything, it is you who has to show how life forms today are descendants of creatures that don’t exist anymore. I’m simply saying they’re dead, extinct, like the dodo, American buffalo, T-Rex or passenger pigeons for whatever reasons. There is no clear indication of lifeforms ‘turning over.’

Vern>By introducing causality, of course! No scientist I know of claims evolution is a random process – they all maintain it is a cause-and-effect process… He pretends to have something of substance, and fails to produce. The issue of “chance” is bogus, since no scientist I know of rejects cause-and-effect in evolution.

A vaccuous statement. Everything, even random events, still have a cause and effect principle. This doesn’t explain anything, the causes themselves have to be random (Although for those with the belief in a creator God, no cause is really random but you know what I mean).

Vern>Just as creation “scientists” automatically dismiss the scientific.

Well you’ll have to provide examples of where they’ve done this, and clear examples with facts that weren’t reached through interpretation or resting on other information that is reached through interpretation

Vern>No. The account in Genesis was long accepted until overwhelming evidence accumulated to refute a literal interpretation of that account.

So where is this overwhelming evidence?

Vern>Until you start claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, the creation occurred in six 24-hour days, and all species were created at the same time.

Empty words, prove their claims can be controverted, and not through your own interpreted ‘facts.’

Vern>No. Science is NOT a religion, and to try to paint it as one is simply dishonest.

Science, in it’s truest nature, isn’t. However people as creationists, evolutionists and any other ‘science’ that is trying to explain origins based on a priori assumptions taken as unchangable dogma to interpret empirical evidence, and which, as mythologies explaining where people come from, are used by others to influence the values for themselves and of society are religions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

What? I’m not supposed to address anything, it is you who has to show how life forms today are descendants of creatures that don’t exist anymore. I’m simply saying they’re dead, extinct, like the dodo, American buffalo, T-Rex or passenger pigeons for whatever reasons. There is no clear indication of lifeforms ‘turning over.’.

Dead wrong. There is enormous evidence of a whole set of plants and animals existing at one time, ande another set at another. This happens over and over in the fossil record.

Claddistics are used to link lineages – but if soft tissue is avaliable, DNA can also be used.

jdnation:

A vaccuous statement. Everything, even random events, still have a cause and effect principle. This doesn’t explain anything, the causes themselves have to be random (Although for those with the belief in a creator God, no cause is really random but you know what I mean)…

You obviously don’t understand the difference between true random events and cause and effect.

jdnation:

Well you’ll have to provide examples of where they’ve done this, and clear examples with facts that weren’t reached through interpretation or resting on other information that is reached through interpretation

Well, I don’t know if he’s a scientist, but a guy using the handle jdnation sasy things like “There is no clear indication of lifeforms ‘turning over.’”

jdnation:

So where is this overwhelming evidence?

In the fossil record. In the DNA of existing species showing lineage. Just about everywhere an unbiased person looks.

jdnation:

Empty words, prove their claims can be controverted, and not through your own interpreted ‘facts.’

People other than I have build an overwhelming case – if you want to refute them, show some of your “facts.”

jdnation:

Science, in it’s truest nature, isn’t. However people as creationists, evolutionists and any other ‘science’ that is trying to explain origins based on a priori assumptions taken as unchangable dogma to interpret empirical evidence, and which, as mythologies explaining where people come from, are used by others to influence the values for themselves and of society are religions.

In the end, that’s all your position boils down to – “I don’t like scientists and I think theyr’e bad people.”

 

[Steve_Andersen]

It seems like you’re wasting your breath Vern
This guy is pulling out all the standard creationist strawmen
And doesn’t understand enough of what he is attacking to realize how weak his argument is.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

Such as?

Darwin’s tree of life. The “similar” embryos. Species to species evolution. Evolution of organs from random purposeless natural selection.
vern humphrey:

Are you saying, “throw out the facts and just present opinions?” Because that’s what it seems like.

No. I’m saying don’t present theories as if they are not challenged and as if they have irrefutable “facts” behind them.
vern humphrey:

Right now, we teach what a scientific theory is (the highest form of scientific approach to certainty) and show the facts for those theories.

This is a good approach. Unfortunately, all too often in schools, key “facts” are taught as the basis for the theory which are not facts at all.
vern humphrey:

Here you seem to be talking about college-level courses (few high schools I know teach either philosophy or theology)

I think they should be allowed in high school. Science is not the supreme discipline of learning. Philosophy and Theology have traditionally been understood as at least equal disciplines of learning. Historically, they have been superior to science, not because they wanted to reject scientific views that seemed to contradict these disciplines, but because science must be contained within principles of ethics. For example, in science, you can chemically put together the components to blow up your neighbors. In philosophy or theology, you can learn that there are certain restrictions necessary to human behavior that benefit the individual and the society as a whole.

We need more high school kids to do more higher level thinking. They are capable. They just need to be challenged.
vern humphrey:

Then by and large we’re there – we teach scietific theories AS scientific theories, and back them up with facts. Speculation based on non-scientific matter is left for the churches.

Simply beause something is a supernatural truth does not make it speculation. This is the root of our thinking problem. We say that only if something is natural (something science can potentially explain) can it be true. However, as Christians, we have evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead but science cannot explain it. Today, we see healings that doctors certify are miraculous and science cannot explain it.

Many of the concepts behind intelligent design that show how incredibly specific certain physics and cosmological measurements must be in order for life to exist are worth pondering, even though science doesn’t know how they came to be in exactly that fashion.

Right and wrong in science can be immediately demonstrated (most of the time). Right and wrong in morals may take longer and thus need to rely on philosophical, historical, or theological teachings. Because they cannot initially be measured by science doesn’t mean they are not equally true and should not be taught.

 

[jdnation]

Vern>Dead wrong. There is enormous evidence of a whole set of plants and animals existing at one time, ande another set at another. This happens over and over in the fossil record. Claddistics are used to link lineages – but if soft tissue is avaliable, DNA can also be used… Well, I don’t know if he’s a scientist, but a guy using the handle jdnation sasy things like “There is no clear indication of lifeforms ‘turning over.’”

Interesting… any links?

Vern>You obviously don’t understand the difference between true random events and cause and effect.

Then please inform me of the ‘difference.’

Vern>In the fossil record. In the DNA of existing species showing lineage. Just about everywhere an unbiased person looks.

Whatever you say :tiphat:

Vern>People other than I have build an overwhelming case – if you want to refute them, show some of your “facts.”

I too get mine from other people who’ve built an overwhelming case for Biblical Creationism, and well I cannot refute yours because it is founded on a philosophical belief! Those things are unprovable and unrefutable. Don’t you get it yet?

Vern>In the end, that’s all your position boils down to – “I don’t like scientists and I think theyr’e bad people.”

Wherever did I say that? Are you even reading anything I post? Here it is again, try reading it slow…ly…

“… people as creationists, evolutionists and any other ‘science’ that is trying to explain origins based on a priori assumptions taken as unchangable dogma to interpret empirical evidence, and which, as mythologies explaining where people come from, are used by others to influence the values for themselves and of society are religions.”

People use science to promote their philosophical views. let me break it down in a way that you can understand…

-Science studies everyday process in the present.

-The big bad evil ignorant fool creationists look at the evidence Science gives us.

-They have some weird idea that the Bible is God’s Word, that Genesis is history because the writer presented the book as such and because the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews read it as such throughout the rest of the Bible. Therefore, upon faith, that there is a Creator God and the Bible is really His revelation to us… things must have worked out as the book says…

-Basing that as their foundation, they hold whatever is proven law and observed directly through Science as fact. Anything else that is speculative and can be open to speculation is then interpreted to fit the Biblical view.

-By justifying their view about the origin of life they make a case to promote Christianity and the Bible as trustworthy. Those nutbags!

You understand that now? I hope so… next do some research, not on the mechanics or theory of evolution, but about how it started and got to where it is today. Otherwise you may just be climbing the wrong mountain.

Frankly you seem to be getting pretty angry for someone who should just be arguing science. Interestingly, people only get this heated and fumbly in their conversational skills when it’s long dearly held beliefs that are threathened.

Go listen to what Steve Anderson said, you’re wasting your breath on stupid lil’me. Don’t bother with providing me information, I’ll ask PhilVaz or visit Talk Origins or google it and find it myself since I’m not ‘above’ such a thing, and I doubt you’d provide me with it anyway.:yawn:

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

Interesting… any links?

How about talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for a starter.

jdnation:

I too get mine from other people who’ve built an overwhelming case for Biblical Creationism, and well I cannot refute yours because it is founded on a philosophical belief! Those things are unprovable and unrefutable. Don’t you get it yet?

I just got it – I ran into your comment on another thread that Saddam Hussain’s massacre of the Kurds was “what any government would do.”

If you can believe that, you can believe anything.

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Creation, or Evolution? Or, are they the same thing?

With all of the known micro-evolutions (limited minor-variations) among all species (kinds), folks have taken the leap-of-faith into “believing” in an alledged “macro-evolution” (a species evolving into another species - kind).
Limited minor-variations ARE proven, but “macro-evolution” is not yet proven. Will it be?
It is imagined, speculated, hypothesized, but not proven.
Folks are divided in the “belief” that it will, or will not be “proven”.
Who’s gonna be the most objective?

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin? Naturally? (No ID)
Or, supernaturally?” (ID)

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

In, “The Supreme Court Decision And Its Meaning,” an evaluation of Louisiana’s 1987 “Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation Science and Evolution,” it states:

• “Creation-science is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms [DNA, etc.].
  Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the lower court decision) forcefully agreed in a dissenting opinion, that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.” -Wendell R. Bird, J.D. (Yale). –IMPACT article, No. 170, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Attorney Wendell R. Bird’s entire concise evaluation (No. 170) may be reviewed at: icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=2

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin?
Naturally? (No ID)
Or, supernaturally?” (ID)