Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Can we talk intelligently about intelligent design


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#16 spooksareus

spooksareus

    Graceful leader of men who harvests wheat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Aptos, California
  • Interests:Healthy friends, supernatural science (oxy morans, lol!), cooking & baking, all animals, playing music (mostly jazz), art (all mediums), interesting & open minded people, truth, justice and liberal politics...

Posted 20 November 2005 - 04:46 PM

And I believe it is taught as the "big bang "Theory":ghost: .....

Edited by spooksareus, 20 November 2005 - 04:47 PM.

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true." -Oscar Wilde “The Picture of Dorian Gray”


#17 randystreu

randystreu

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 20 November 2005 - 04:53 PM

And I believe it is taught as the "big bang "Theory":ghost: .....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Which proves the hypocracy of the modern scientist. They even call evolution a "theory." But they expect both the Big Bang and evolution to be embraced as Total Truth by students and the world at large. They've simply lost both the ability to remain objective and the will to be held accountable.

#18 spooksareus

spooksareus

    Graceful leader of men who harvests wheat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Aptos, California
  • Interests:Healthy friends, supernatural science (oxy morans, lol!), cooking &amp; baking, all animals, playing music (mostly jazz), art (all mediums), interesting &amp; open minded people, truth, justice and liberal politics...

Posted 20 November 2005 - 05:06 PM

Thank you for continuing the discussion Randy.
Please define Science V.S. Religion and let's add Theory V.S. Doctrine....

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true." -Oscar Wilde “The Picture of Dorian Gray”


#19 randystreu

randystreu

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 20 November 2005 - 09:18 PM

sure.
First, I'm not going to say that science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they aren't.

Science is studying the measurable, observable and repeatable aspects of a thing to further our understanding of it. Once science moves beyond this point and moves into dogma, it ceases to be science and becomes religion.

Religion is, for lack of a dictionary in front of me, the incorporation of our beliefs re: our origins, soul, deities, etc. into our daily lives. In other words, living out what you believe.

Theory vs. Doctrine. Okay. Theory is basically an idea, be it scientific or philosophical, that has been tested to a certain point, and found to have some merit. This is not to say the idea is true: indeed it may still be entirely false. But given the facts at hand, it cannot be entirely ruled out. Such is the case with evolution. Evolution is a compelling theory, which at this point hasn't been ruled out. It is, however, irresponsible to label it as fact at this point, as well.

Doctrine is the interpretation of scripture and tradition turned to practical use in religion.

Like theory, doctrine has a place, insofar as it can't be ruled out, necessarily. However, in my own Christian experience, I find that human doctrine often has very little to do with actual scripture.

#20 spooksareus

spooksareus

    Graceful leader of men who harvests wheat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Aptos, California
  • Interests:Healthy friends, supernatural science (oxy morans, lol!), cooking &amp; baking, all animals, playing music (mostly jazz), art (all mediums), interesting &amp; open minded people, truth, justice and liberal politics...

Posted 20 November 2005 - 11:40 PM

Again, thank you for helping to facilitate Randy.

Anyone else wanna' take a go?

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true." -Oscar Wilde “The Picture of Dorian Gray”


#21 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 November 2005 - 11:59 PM

While I am one of those (apparently evil and misinformed depending on who you are talking to) people that holds to the theory of Evolution, I also am of the opinion that something engineered that evolution.  From my point of view that would be a few Gods and Goddesses. 

Frankly, I think the two fit together nicely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't have said it any better. This is exactly what I believe. I personally think that the multiple gods and goddesses are just different aspects of the one ultimate being though.

#22 jacsmith_xxx

jacsmith_xxx

    Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 12:19 AM

Yes, Orbie, Everything is God, but not god as a person, but God as the all encompassing essence of existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Very well said moon child :)

#23 Markway

Markway

    Can dowse the moon everytime that it's full!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Puget Sound, WA State
  • Interests:Para normal activity of all kinds, but especially the why of where. Bad things happen everywhere, but why is THIS place haunted, charged, etc.? Intelligent exchange of ideas, sharing of experiences and and putting various talents to work on a single problem. High strangeness of all kinds.

Posted 27 November 2005 - 06:23 AM

An interesting exchange. Of course you realize that everyone who has responded so far is about 100% at variance with the rest of America! I can't argue with most of what was said however.

There is one point I would like to make and expand upon. Doctrine and religion are too often misunderstood. Any belief system that assumes life-guiding proportions and a certain level of organization has effectively become a religion. Doctrine is a religion's systematized description of belief. Have you noticed any mention of the supernatural or afterlife? You won't because it isn't necessary to a religion. Atheism, Marxism, Free-Market Capitalism, Modern Science, these belief systems and more can all be considered religions for many people.

It is of course possible to believe in and even participate in any or all ofthese systems of power and thought without their becoming a religion to you personally, but be assurred that somewhere, each has its' priesthood, and worshippers.

The whole reason that we have all settled at our computers and chosen to add our thoughts to this thread is because there is a clash in our society between two inflexible doctrines. One the one hand there is the least flexible and most dedicated branch of North American Christianity, and on the other Modern Science and the currently very secular society of Western intellectualism.

My specialities, (other than the paranormal), are Anthropology, (ancient), Political Science, and European History (ancient). It is always a shock to discover just how doctrinaire science has become. I am firmly convinced that a lot of discoveries are not made simply because scientists are taught not to look. The evidence mounts for a precolumbian presence of Europeans esp, but Modern Asiatics and African groups as well in the Americas. Any such evidence however is routinely ignored, abused and often discarded. This is but one example of a pattern covering nearly all scientific disciplines; A to Z, Archeology to Zoology.

To my knowledge, the theory of evolution is the most widely taught theory taught as a fact in the world. There's a lot of evidence for it, but some very scary holes as well. Darwin himself died concerned about the conundrum of flowering plants. No one has yet to explain the high numbers of advantageous mutations in a relatively short period of time, or demonstrated how chromosomes are added to one species DNA code to produce a new one, but, wrong again, is once enough? How many new individuals are necessary to create a new species? It is well known that a species becomes unviable with too few specimens. So, how does a rather large group of living things make a GROUP change to being a new species? As they say, "The Devil is in the details".

Personally, I have trouble coming down on either side in the public debate. As stated here, a combination of Creator using Animals to create His image is a humbling even great picture; one I favor myself. I can only deplore the radical and unwise course education has taken based upon so little evidence. As a wiser man than myself once said, " ...you have ruined my sense of what is right by teaching me that North is East, down is up, and 2 times 2 is four." Sometimes a half-truth is worse than no truth at all.
Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
This much let me avow---
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream:
Yet if hope has flown away In a night,
Or in a day, In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

#24 spooksareus

spooksareus

    Graceful leader of men who harvests wheat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Aptos, California
  • Interests:Healthy friends, supernatural science (oxy morans, lol!), cooking &amp; baking, all animals, playing music (mostly jazz), art (all mediums), interesting &amp; open minded people, truth, justice and liberal politics...

Posted 27 November 2005 - 11:51 AM

Thank you for adding such a well thought response.
I enjoyed reading it..... :Wall:

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true." -Oscar Wilde “The Picture of Dorian Gray”


#25 Bobnoxious

Bobnoxious

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Cleveland, OH
  • Interests:Music (heavy metal, punk rock, rockabilly, progressive rock, old country, garage rock, and other non mainstream sounds), movies (horror, sci-fi, exploitation, independent, foreign, and old classics mainly), writing (mostly for my zine/website Utter Trash - http://www.uttertrash.net), and singing for my band Horror of 59 (http://www.horrorof59.com).

Posted 01 December 2005 - 04:55 PM

A scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested. If these predictions made by the theory consistently are shown to be accurate, then we have reason to believe the theory is correct. But no theory can be proven 100% true. That goes for even such common sense "facts" as gravity or that the earth is round. Those theories have been tested enough that we can say with 99.999% certainty they are true, but theories always leave open the possibility we could learn something new that would force us to modify or discard them. This is why when advocates for intelligent design make the case that "evolution is just a theory" they are not making a valid argument.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, makes a statement that cannot be falsified. Many have tried, but you just can't prove God/gods/goddesses don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore teaching about intelligent design in a science class just isn't scientific.

But is evolution a good theory? Well, the vast majority of scientists seem to think so. It is one of the most tested and most confirmed theories in science. Predictions made by the theory of evolution have been confirmed not just in the field of biology, but in geology, astronomy, and other fields. There is disagreement among scientists about certain aspects of evolutionary theory, but not about the general idea that life evolved from simpler to more complex organisms over a long period of time. For a ton of additional information check out this site.

As has been pointed out by others, there is no reason why one can't accept the theory of evolution and still believe in a creator. Science says absolutely nothing about this. Even if we go back to the "big bang", there's nothing saying that said bang was not the result of some deity snapping his fingers to get the ball rolling, or the guiding force of the universe which we are all part of and will one day return to splitting itself up into smaller parts. You can have your cake and eat it to if you like.

To touch on some other issues: athiesm is not a religion, and it is not being taught in our schools. Schools are government institutions, and the first ammendment guarantees seperation of church and state. Kids are supposed to go to school to learn how to read, write, do math, and get a basic understanding of how science works. Religion is supposed to be taught at home or in the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. Or, if parents really want religion to be part of their child's education, they can fork over the cash for a parochial school or look into home schooling.

Markway rails against the big bad scientific establishment that quashes all ideas it doesn't like, supposedly to maintain some kind of status quo. The fact is, science has addressed the things he brings up. While some or even all of what Markway talks about might (and I stress might) turn out to be true, at present these claims have not held up well to testing.

And whether you believe in some sort of creator or believe in the big bang, there's always going to be that nagging question of "yeah, but what came before that?" If we were created by a divine creator/force, what brought that creator/force into existence? If we came out of the big bang, what made that big bang happen? Somehow, somewhere, something came out of nothing. And that's something neither science nor religion can ever really explain.
"Future events such as these will affect you in the future." - Criswell, 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'

#26 spooksareus

spooksareus

    Graceful leader of men who harvests wheat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Aptos, California
  • Interests:Healthy friends, supernatural science (oxy morans, lol!), cooking &amp; baking, all animals, playing music (mostly jazz), art (all mediums), interesting &amp; open minded people, truth, justice and liberal politics...

Posted 01 December 2005 - 05:39 PM

Oh good, I was hoping we could talk intelligently about intelligent design, and we are.
Thanks Bobnoxious, for joining in and adding some very good points..... :P

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true." -Oscar Wilde “The Picture of Dorian Gray”


#27 Markway

Markway

    Can dowse the moon everytime that it's full!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Puget Sound, WA State
  • Interests:Para normal activity of all kinds, but especially the why of where. Bad things happen everywhere, but why is THIS place haunted, charged, etc.? Intelligent exchange of ideas, sharing of experiences and and putting various talents to work on a single problem. High strangeness of all kinds.

Posted 02 December 2005 - 03:47 AM

Dear Bob,

Are we going steady? :) Do we like the same things, or are you following me around?LOL

Of course, I disagree with most of what you said. It shows a lack of understanding concerning the scientific process and academia in general. I know that this statement sound rather less than polite, but is, nevertheless, true.

A theory is judged by its' predictive ability, and its' resistance to the testing process. In other words, is it possible to reproduce the result that the theory predicts consistantly, and does the theory predict new or future results? If a theory has not been tested in this fashion it remains a theory, an unproven idea.

Evolution is supposed to work upon two levels, the macro and the micro. Micro evolution has been proven and can no longer be considered a theory, but has moved into the realm of fact. Micro evolution deals with the proliferation and differentiation of one species into many varieties called races or more popularly these days, sub-species. This is what Darwin observed in the Galapagoes during the development of his now famous theory.

Macro evolution is far harder to prove. Macro evolution is the change from one species to another, usually acompanied by an inability to breed with the "parent" species fruitfully, and or the addition of chromosomes. Speciation, co-evolution, evolutionary speed, etc. remain huge untested problems for the theory of macro evolution, and have never been even closely explained. I won't go into more detail,( see my above post). Nevertheless, the fossil record seems to "prove" evolution as a fact without suggesting it's mechanism(s) of operation. This theory has not been tested "and found to be 99.999% true." It has NEVER been tested or demonstrated. What is more, I know of NO [I]suggested[I] mechanism for speciation. ( By the way, I would be interested how you bring Astronomy to the table here. Are you possibly referring to the two major "alphabet soup" extinctions caused by comets?)

I suspect Bob, that what bothered you most about my posting was my inclusion of Atheism and Science as religions. It might surprise you that this sort of thing is routine in the study of cultural anthropology. A systematized belief system that explains the universe is , by definition, a religion. When you add acolytes and believers the picture is complete. As you point out our constitution ensures "no establishment of religion", (not separation of church and state). What do you call it though, when the schools teach creation without a creator? This is perilously close to Atheism. (For the record, Atheists have asked for, and been granted religious status in a number of venues including public schools.)

I don't "rail against the big bad scientific establishment", because there is none. What is extant is equally pernicious. There are belief systems taught here in the U.S. and similar ones taught in Europe, that effectively maintain the status quo. Of course, if you as an academician refuse to march in lockstep, you will soon discover tenure out of reach, funding doing a disappearing act, and peer revue killing your publications. I have had personal contact with individuals who have related unthinkable stories. ( For example: during it's most recent 20th century remodel, the Smithsonian is supposed to have loaded a barge with various items and sunk them in the Atlantic ) ( When it's an old friend telling you this, is he, A.) having a nervous breakdown, B.) trying to get on the Art Bell Show, Or, C.) telling the truth?)

Finally, is it possible for anyone who has had contact with college educated Europeans, to doubt that Atheism is the only taught and respectable standard?
Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
This much let me avow---
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream:
Yet if hope has flown away In a night,
Or in a day, In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

#28 Bobnoxious

Bobnoxious

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Cleveland, OH
  • Interests:Music (heavy metal, punk rock, rockabilly, progressive rock, old country, garage rock, and other non mainstream sounds), movies (horror, sci-fi, exploitation, independent, foreign, and old classics mainly), writing (mostly for my zine/website Utter Trash - http://www.uttertrash.net), and singing for my band Horror of 59 (http://www.horrorof59.com).

Posted 04 December 2005 - 05:05 AM

Markway,

What can I say, we're just interested in the same topics from completely different points of view. On to the meat of your arguments.

The macro/micro evolution debate is a strawman argument. Evolutionary theory says that (quoting from http://www.geocities...2437/intro.htm) "The traditional Darwinian outlook holds that small incremental changes in structure and behavior, brought about by the natural selection of variations, produce, after a long period of time, organisms that differ so greatly from their ancestors that they are no longer the same organism, and must be classified as a separate species. This process of speciation, repeated over the 3.5 billion year span of time since life first appeared on earth, explains the gradual production of all of life's diversity." It is in this context that astronomy comes to the table, as it helps debunk the "young earth" belief held by many creationists.

As I said, there are disagreements among scientists about some of the specifics of evolution. But there is little if any disagreement that the theory is correct in general. Too much evidence confirms it. By the way, any theory that fails to pass its tests is a hypothesis. A theory is only a theory once it has been succesfully tested. Which evolution has. I suggest you follow the link in my previous message, as I don't feel like posting the large amount of information found there in a message. And no, this is not my only source for this information, but it is one that is easily accessible to those reading this thread and deals with the topic in a fairly easy to understand manner.

It wasn't you saying athiesm was a religon that bothered me the most. It wasn't even you who said that, it was Randy. And it doesn't particularly bother me, it's just wrong. But to address your points on this issue, athiesm is hardly a systemized belief system. The only thing athiests have in common by definition is they don't believe in god. Beyond that, they can believe anything about the origins of the universe they like. And schools remaining neutral on the existence of God/gods/goddesses is hardly the same thing as teaching that they don't exist. Are Europeans less religious than us? The evidence I've seen indicates you are correct on this point. Is that a bad thing, and does it prove that athiesm is actually being taught in the schools? That's another debate.
"Future events such as these will affect you in the future." - Criswell, 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'

#29 Markway

Markway

    Can dowse the moon everytime that it's full!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Puget Sound, WA State
  • Interests:Para normal activity of all kinds, but especially the why of where. Bad things happen everywhere, but why is THIS place haunted, charged, etc.? Intelligent exchange of ideas, sharing of experiences and and putting various talents to work on a single problem. High strangeness of all kinds.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:52 PM

Dear Bob,

I apologize if I have been discourteous during our discourse. Frankly, I am on a new med, and my self restraint has been affected, although my brain seems to function at a higher level. (I am not a psychotic, no matter what some of you might think, that I do excite speculation by talking this way I must admit. I take pain meds)

Evolution is considered a theory and not an Hypothesis by courtesy only. As said before, Macro evolution is a huge problem for evolutionists, not a strawman. As said before, I think, personally, that Evolution in some form is a workable theory, but to play devil's advocate, it truly is far from proven. I took my masters in Anthro in the late '70's. When I got back into it over the whole Eve business and my interest in Neanterthal, the arguement had not moved. I don't want to cover endless material to bring the uninterested up to speed, but the whole theory of evolution is based upon mutations.

Mutations currently happen at a determined rate. Most all of mutations are diadvantageous. There is not enough time, geologically, to provide for evolution. So, to fix that, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was developed. This theory speculates that under extreme situaitions, evolution occurs at an accelerated pace. Scientists accept the theory because it works at the micro level, and all of the other known alternatives seem less "scientific".
Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
This much let me avow---
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream:
Yet if hope has flown away In a night,
Or in a day, In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

#30 jenbrown

jenbrown

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Location:Santa Rosa, CA
  • Interests:Haunted anything, movies and Disney!

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:56 PM

My theory when I was a kid was that God wanted to be mysterious and wanted people to choose what they believed so he created the evidence of evolution therefore man was tested. Either they believed in the faith of God or they believe in the power of human intellegence and what science told them.

As an adult, I do believe in one all powerful force but it is up the the person what they see whether it's a God in Heaven or Buddha or Allah or other supreme beings. Each person channels this incredible energy and their faith leads them to what that energy is which could also be for some in the energy of the universe and evolution.

When we die we become one with that energy again what ever our faith leads us to believe that energy is. That is our "heaven".
"Serpents and spiders, tail of a rat. Call in the spirits, wherever they’re at!Rap on a table, it’s time to respond. Send us a message from somewhere beyond!Goblins and ghoulies from last Halloween, awaken the spirits with your tambourine! Creepies and crawlies... toads in a pond! Let there be music from regions beyond.Wizards and witches, wherever you dwell – give us a hint by ringing a bell!" Madame Leota




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users