If you read any ID literature, you would see that the reason ‘creation’ was replaced with ‘intelligent design’ is precisely because most people seem to wrongly associate the word ‘creation’ with the movement known as ‘young earth creationism’, which is a religious/scientific movement that uses the Bible and does not pretend that it doesn’t. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text in any of its arguments and I would like to see you show me one example of it doing so. After initially being misunderstood by its broad use of the word ‘creation’, ID theorists decided to clarify their differences with young earth creationism by settling on the term ‘intelligent design’. The ‘guilty by association’ tactic, employed by those wishing to slander ID is therefore baseless.
Oh please. They took the exact same book and changed nothing. Nothing expect that little word. The entire thing is the same. Defintion and all. You're grasping.
Wow, you have admitted that ID has come up with a ‘few’ scientific ideas. This is a breakthrough, ok so if ID is ‘not science’ how is it that they have come up with scientific ideas? I expect that by ‘debunked and disproved’ you are referring to Miller’s exposition of the TTSS. Well, I expect that you have not read Behe’s response to Miller, so here it is:
Ok so do you think that evolution proves your atheism?
No, I don't care. God could have created evolution too. Like I said a million times before: I don't know, I don't care. To me there is no god, there will never be a god. If there does exist one than I was wrong.
However, I do think that the Darwinian elite, whether atheist or theist has a LOT to lose from the rise of ID, the foundations are crumbling and they are mighty pissed off.
Foundations are crumbling, eh? False. The science is hard to disprove, I think at one point ID may have tried, but it seems they've given up and started a smear campaign. One that is working in religious countries.
Its almost laughable to hear Daniel Dennet keep saying ‘there is no scientific controversy over origins’, when the Discovery Institute has a list of over 700 pHD scientists who ‘dissent from darwinism’, this list has gained 100 signatures since I last looked at it about a month ago. Here it is if you want to see it:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I completely agree with this. Any scientist, any evolutionary scientist, any average person would agree with that. This is not new. This is not special. Evolution is debated exstensively within the scientific community. There are many things, such as the importance of certain mechanisms, they disagree with.
The few theists who are part of the Darwinian community, are those who are willing to compartmentalize their knowledge, to keep ‘science’ in a completely different part of their brain to ‘religion’, they can go to Church on Sunday and worship God – then give a lecture on Monday about how life and the universe came about by blind chance. Stephen Jay Gould proposed that science and religion should be ‘Non Overlapping Magesteria’ (NOMA) so that no conflict should be allowed to arise between the two. This is intellectual suicide, and on this point, I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins.
Again there you go: the few... There could be thousands. You don't know. You're pretending like there are only five scientists how believe in god.
Whilst some kind of theory of origins may develop in the future, ID has never claimed to have any answers about HOW life appeared.This is why I say that it is MORE scientific than either young earth creationism or Darwinism.
In the first step of the scientific method we have observation, operational definitons and measurements and counting.
In the second step you formulate hypotheses. You give a hypothetical explanation for your observations and the other things in step one.
Step three, predictions. A useful hypothesis will allow predictions. Predictions are made by reasoning.
The last step is the experiments. This means all the previous steps should be testable. You test all the stuff from the other steps. When you find out you were wrong, you start over. When you find out you were right, you publish your research in peer-reviewed magazine. Other scientists will challenge your research, do the same experiment etc.
That is the scientific method. ID is at step one. That is why it is not science at all.
If you disagree, tim, you can easily prove me wrong, just provide me with the four steps.
I don't completely agree with him [Richard Lewontin], as I'm sure many scientists wouldn't. I'm sure many would as well. Science has its limits.
The problem is that so many scientists do NOT recognise the limitations of science. They think that it is ultimately capable of answering ALL questions about life and the universe precisely because they believe that ALL causes are natural/material.
"We [700 pHD scientists]are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I completely agree with this. Any scientist, any evolutionary scientist, any average person would agree with that. This is not new. This is not special. Evolution is debated exstensively within the scientific community. There are many things, such as the importance of certain mechanisms, they disagree with.
Sorry Collin but you are wrong to suggest that the Darwinian establishment is open to the possibility that their theory is untrue. Your friends at atheism about.com sum up the prevailing view among Darwinists:
"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."
THAT evolution has occured is a GIVEN in mainstrean biology, any criticism of it, however scientifically legitimate, faces ridicule and accusations of 'religious motivations' as the controversy over ID has shown.
Either way, you still haven't answered my question. What about the consequences of allowing a divine foot in the door?
Allowing non-atheistic possibilties for the cause of life and the universe would not destroy science, it would enhance it. Yes people could postulate all kinds of bizare causes, but this does not mean that science would have to regard them as plausible.
oh collin, tim, i soooooooo dont care anymore. i believe what i believe. and i ignore everything else cause it makes no sense to me. i am at complete peace with what it is that i feel and believe. and i think thats what it comes down to.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The problem is that so many scientists do NOT recognise the limitations of science. They think that it is ultimately capable of answering ALL questions about life and the universe precisely because they believe that ALL causes are natural/material.
Do you have any proof for this claim whatsoever. Did you interview the majority of scientists. I think not.
Sorry Collin but you are wrong to suggest that the Darwinian establishment is open to the possibility that their theory is untrue. Your friends at atheism about.com sum up the prevailing view among Darwinists:
"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."
THAT evolution has occured is a GIVEN in mainstrean biology, any criticism of it, however scientifically legitimate, faces ridicule and accusations of 'religious motivations' as the controversy over ID has shown.
I agree with them and with the scientists. It has occured, it is a fact. They are debating about how it occurs, what's important in the process, what's not...
Show me legitimate scientific criticism of the theory of evolution.
Allowing non-atheistic possibilties for the cause of life and the universe would not destroy science, it would enhance it. Yes people could postulate all kinds of bizare causes, but this does not mean that science would have to regard them as plausible.
So, alchemy would enchance science how? Astrology would enchance science how?
oh collin, tim, i soooooooo dont care anymore. i believe what i believe. and i ignore everything else cause it makes no sense to me. i am at complete peace with what it is that i feel and believe. and i think thats what it comes down to.
i just dont see that if you are dead certain in what you believe that anything could compromise that. as ive said before i was 11 years old when i became an atheist and in the ensuing 32 years NOTHING has made me question the conclusions i have come to. surely that has to count for something.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i just dont see that if you are dead certain in what you believe that anything could compromise that. as ive said before i was 11 years old when i became an atheist and in the ensuing 32 years NOTHING has made me question the conclusions i have come to. surely that has to count for something.
I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.
I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.
I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.
I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.
i was 11/12. i asked the questions and they were not answered. i was thrown out of religious class more than once and so i figured i had to sort it out for myself. ive done that. what speaks to me the most is that there has never been any doubt for me. i came to a conclusion and nothing anyone has ever said to me has made me question my conviction.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I am lost at first; you are quite intelligent and I got confused reading the beginning here.......
but I do agree with you at the end, for what it's worth. Like I totally am right there with Jesus and God, but religion? Well, sorry but I do not think they really meet with Them. Religion too often is pompous and arrogant and Jesus is humble and loving and forgiving. so on that, noting our inidvidual paths and all, I agree because my path is quite unique although I count myself as a Christian.
...
The last time I checked... Christianity was considered to be a religion. Did something change since then? And the doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus in the physical incarnation of God... and only through Jesus Christ, will mortal men find a path to God. That pretty much qualifies as a religion... I think. And to follow a path laid by Christianity... as a Christian... makes it sound like you are a part of the Christian religion. If I'm wrong, please, correct me.
...
The issue I have with religion is the attempt of religions to claim God as their own... exclusively. Religion is how Man created God in his (Man's) image. This way, Man can stake a claim in God and affix all of Man's pettiness and human characteristics and traits onto God. That probably explains why God in the Old Testament is sometimes as petty prick to people.
I ain't buying it. God is better than that. and the issue I have with the Bible (and other Holy Texts) is that it was written by Man, not God. Sure, it is Man... 'Inspired by God', but not by God Himself. Add the fact that the Bible was basically in the sole possession of the Church... that was governed by Men... of power... til about the 1600s... to me... it make me question it. Mostly because I do not trust the Church and the men who run it.
All of this Intelligent Design stuff is just another attempt to insert Christian faith into the sciences. Faith is NOT science. Run repeated and verifiable tests to prove the concept that all life as we know it sprung up at the same time... some 6,000 years ago (not the 3,000,000,000 years the fossil record goes back to) and I will consider it a possiblity. As for now, Intelligent Design is basically trying to portray the Bible as a science text... not the literary prose I see it as.
...
My choice is to eliminate the filter of religion from my life. To seek God on my own means.
As for Jesus... I love His teachings and do my best to follow His example. I am not sure of all of that Son of God/resurrection stuff because it could all be exaggeration, myth or legend that was created ofer the centuries. But, His message was one I accept.
As for the absolute truth... Does God exist? All I know is what I believe I know (which I know is NOT necessarily the absolute truth)... and the only thing I truely know is... no one else knows, either.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I was talking about two things, spiritual experiences and religious ones. Religious experiences are about god or about supernatural higher beings. That explains the third paragraph.
I said I wouldn't believe in many spiritual experiences. That means that there are spiritual experiences I would believe in namely the ones that are purely natural.
So no, I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
ahh, sorry- i misread and thought you said you wouldn't believe in ANY (instead of "many") spiritual experiences. :oops:
well, at least you're keeping an open mind, and that's all i'm asking.
peace, baby.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous! this started out as tim bemoaning the fact that his former spiritual advisor and soulmate/comrade in arms, eddie vedder- frontman for the band pearl jam and not an actual personal friend of tim's- has gone astray and renounced jesus as his lord and savior. that BASTARD! :rolleyes:
tim, hon, sweetie- NONE of us has the first freakin' CLUE what ed actually believes, nor should we need to know. he's a brilliant, talented, fascinating, charismatic... ROCK STAR. he's not your priest, or your drinking buddy, or your brother. you don't know him personally or, dare i say, in the biblical sense. he's not your f*cking messiah, in other words... you need to believe what you believe and leave this whole "ed has betrayed me" thing behind you. you can do it, buckaroo.
just like i had to get over the fact that he went ahead and had a child with someone other than ME. it still stings... but i'm gonna pull through. and so will you.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
just like i had to get over the fact that he went ahead and had a child with someone other than ME. it still stings... but i'm gonna pull through. and so will you.
Sorry...not to take away from your post but this made me LOL
I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.
I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.
actually, the buddhism as buddha taught it has no such trappings. you should read the book Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen. it explains the stripped down, bare-bones buddhism that i think might appeal to you as much as it does to me.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous! this started out as tim bemoaning the fact that his former spiritual advisor and soulmate/comrade in arms, eddie vedder- frontman for the band pearl jam and not an actual personal friend of tim's- has gone astray and renounced jesus as his lord and savior. that BASTARD! :rolleyes:
tim, hon, sweetie- NONE of us has the first freakin' CLUE what ed actually believes, nor should we need to know. he's a brilliant, talented, fascinating, charismatic... ROCK STAR. he's not your priest, or your drinking buddy, or your brother. you don't know him personally or, dare i say, in the biblical sense. he's not your f*cking messiah, in other words... you need to believe what you believe and leave this whole "ed has betrayed me" thing behind you. you can do it, buckaroo.
just like i had to get over the fact that he went ahead and had a child with someone other than ME. it still stings... but i'm gonna pull through. and so will you.
...
I tried to keep it on track... but, it went off on that Intelligent Design tangent.
But, you are absolutely right. From what I read, it sounds as if Tim had misinterpreted Ed's lyrics to fit his (Tim's) religious beliefs... believeing they were on the same track. As time progressed and Tim learned more about where Ed stands on specific issues or beliefs, he (Tim) misinterpreted them as Ed straying from the true path to God... Christianity.
The truth is more likely to be... they were never on the same track to begin with. Ed on his own way and Tim on Tim's own way.
...
Does it change either Tim or Ed? No.
...
Then... there are all of those off tangents that cause it ti stray from the original message. In a sense, possibly the same way religion tends to stray for it's original message as time passes and different people add their personal input into the equation.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I tried to keep it on track... but, it went off on that Intelligent Design tangent.
But, you are absolutely right. From what I read, it sounds as if Tim had misinterpreted Ed's lyrics to fit his (Tim's) religious beliefs... believeing they were on the same track. As time progressed and Tim learned more about where Ed stands on specific issues or beliefs, he (Tim) misinterpreted them as Ed straying from the true path to God... Christianity.
The truth is more likely to be... they were never on the same track to begin with. Ed on his own way and Tim on Tim's own way.
...
Does it change either Tim or Ed? No.
...
Then... there are all of those off tangents that cause it ti stray from the original message. In a sense, possibly the same way religion tends to stray for it's original message as time passes and different people add their personal input into the equation.
Hello again Cosmo and Sweet Potato.
Yeah, we have got a bit sidetracked by this Intelligent Design debate but I dont think thats all my fault. I have tried to bring it back to PJ twice by posting my interpretation of 'insignificance' but everyone just wanted to talk about creationism/evolution etc. not that I mind, its been a good debate so far I think. I disagree with you both about my relationship with PJ's music. I didn't just learn more about their beliefs during the Binaural period, this was when Ed became an atheist, and his lyrics began to reflect this from Binaural onwards, hence they got less spiritual and more political. Others on this thread have felt this change, even though they are not Christians. From ten to Yeild, I'm pretty sure Ed was open to the idea of God and searching for truth. On 'Given to fly', I think he was reflecting on the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. As someone has pointed out, Ed himself said that it was a song about 'faith' but which faith? What other spiritual leader walked on water, was stripped and stabbed by 'faceless men', came back to share the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere, still stands, still gives his love away, and has a love that is 'saved'. I suggest there is only one, Jesus of Nazareth. My opinion is that around the same time he was investigating the life of Jesus, Ed also started seriously reading about evolution. He made his choice and his commitment to darwinism became quite obvious on the next couple of PJ albums, on 'Big wave' for example, Ed celebrates it. If you look at the quote on celebrityatheistslist.com, which was, I think, eds first public confession of Atheism (just after making Yeild), you will see that he sites evolutionary theory to justify his atheism. Peace.
Also, even if Lewontin is right, this does not mean ID is even remotely correct. Don't forget that little fact.
For those who don’t know what Collin is referring to here, he is referring to a quote I posted by the famous Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin. Here is the quote again:
”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
Now, Collin has said that, even if Lewontin is correct, this does not score any points for ID. Well actually, if Lewontin is correct, then the central argument of ID (that Darwinism rests on the philosophy of naturalism/materialism rather than evidence) is PROVEN. Naturalism/materialism is an unproven philosophy that, as Lewontin says, is accepted ‘a priori’, (assumed without experience or evidence). This philosophy is the underlying belief that upholds the Darwinian paradigm and assures its victory over its rivals. This has been achieved because naturalism automatically rules out Darwinism’s main rival – design. Thus, once this fact is accepted, we see that Darwinism is not pure science, rather it is a mixture of science and belief just like creationism. ID has arisen in the ideological ‘middle ground’ between the two faith positions by consciously putting aside the presuppositions of both Creationism and Darwinism and letting the evidence speak for itself.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I completely agree with this.
The above quotation that Collin is agreeing with is the statement of ‘dissent from darwinism’ which 700 pHD scientists have now put their names to. You can view this at:
Collin, If you really do ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ and are skeptical about the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life. If you really do believe that Darwinian theory should no longer be accepted a priori, and that instead the evidence that is claimed to support it be re-examined on its own merit without appeals to any prior philosophical commitments, then welcome to the Intelligent Design community.
...
The last time I checked... Christianity was considered to be a religion. Did something change since then? And the doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus in the physical incarnation of God... and only through Jesus Christ, will mortal men find a path to God. That pretty much qualifies as a religion... I think. And to follow a path laid by Christianity... as a Christian... makes it sound like you are a part of the Christian religion. If I'm wrong, please, correct me.
...
The issue I have with religion is the attempt of religions to claim God as their own... exclusively. Religion is how Man created God in his (Man's) image. This way, Man can stake a claim in God and affix all of Man's pettiness and human characteristics and traits onto God. That probably explains why God in the Old Testament is sometimes as petty prick to people.
I ain't buying it. God is better than that. and the issue I have with the Bible (and other Holy Texts) is that it was written by Man, not God. Sure, it is Man... 'Inspired by God', but not by God Himself. Add the fact that the Bible was basically in the sole possession of the Church... that was governed by Men... of power... til about the 1600s... to me... it make me question it. Mostly because I do not trust the Church and the men who run it.
All of this Intelligent Design stuff is just another attempt to insert Christian faith into the sciences. Faith is NOT science. Run repeated and verifiable tests to prove the concept that all life as we know it sprung up at the same time... some 6,000 years ago (not the 3,000,000,000 years the fossil record goes back to) and I will consider it a possiblity. As for now, Intelligent Design is basically trying to portray the Bible as a science text... not the literary prose I see it as.
...
My choice is to eliminate the filter of religion from my life. To seek God on my own means.
As for Jesus... I love His teachings and do my best to follow His example. I am not sure of all of that Son of God/resurrection stuff because it could all be exaggeration, myth or legend that was created ofer the centuries. But, His message was one I accept.
As for the absolute truth... Does God exist? All I know is what I believe I know (which I know is NOT necessarily the absolute truth)... and the only thing I truely know is... no one else knows, either.
I am glad you asked, because now I have a way of knowing how to explain this about myself; something that I in my heart know but am not always able to put into words.....I will certainly do my best.....
I consider myself a follower of Christ; thus a Christian, and yet then even there are further sub groups that are broken down into the individual religions as you speak that differ in certain beliefs, rituals, sacraments, etc. Their core is based on that they believe that Christ is the saviour, but (I feel ) their practices are broken down into like who is more into the rights and sacraments of the old testament and who is more into the new.
I also find that religion is not always genuine.
perhaps if you desire to know what I mean beyond what I can say here, you can check out my writing on the poetry thread that I titled Wooden Jesus, before remembering there was already a song of that title. if you do, let me know if my stance is clearer............
thanks for being respectful; truly
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
In the first step of the scientific method we have observation, operational definitons and measurements and counting.
In the second step you formulate hypotheses. You give a hypothetical explanation for your observations and the other things in step one.
Step three, predictions. A useful hypothesis will allow predictions. Predictions are made by reasoning.
The last step is the experiments. This means all the previous steps should be testable. You test all the stuff from the other steps. When you find out you were wrong, you start over. When you find out you were right, you publish your research in peer-reviewed magazine. Other scientists will challenge your research, do the same experiment etc.
That is the scientific method. ID is at step one. That is why it is not science at all.
If you disagree, tim, you can easily prove me wrong, just provide me with the four steps.
Ok.
Step 1. Proffessor Michael Behe OBSERVED that the bacterial flagellar motor has fourty working parts necessary to its function.
Step 2. Proffesor Michael Behe FORMULATED A HYPOTHESIS called 'irreducible complexity'. Behe defined irreducibly complex systems as
‘a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’
This observation followed Darwin's own criteria for testing the validity of his theory, as given in 'On The Origin Of the Species':
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’
Step 3. Proffessor Michael Behe PREDICTED that if individual parts were removed from 'irreducibly complex systems' the systems would cease to function. Therefore, since these systems need to have all fourty parts present simultaneously in order to function, they could not have 'evolved' by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'. Therefore darwin's theory 'absolutely breaks down'.
step 4. Microbiologist Dr. Scott Minnich has performed many knockout EXPERIMENTS that put 'irreducible complexity' to the test. Minnich's work confirmed Behe's PREDICTIONS, however - oh damn it, heres is where you have won i guess, the mainstream scientific journals refused to publish Minnich's results because they appear to support ID, which we all know is 'not science'. Since they have not been published in the 'peer-reviewed literature', we can safely conclude therefore that Behe and Minnich's work is definitly 'not science' but 'religion'.
Still, if anyone wants to see this research, here it is:
I am glad you asked, because now I have a way of knowing how to explain this about myself; something that I in my heart know but am not always able to put into words.....I will certainly do my best.....
I consider myself a follower of Christ; thus a Christian, and yet then even there are further sub groups that are broken down into the individual religions as you speak that differ in certain beliefs, rituals, sacraments, etc. Their core is based on that they believe that Christ is the saviour, but (I feel ) their practices are broken down into like who is more into the rights and sacraments of the old testament and who is more into the new.
I also find that religion is not always genuine.
perhaps if you desire to know what I mean beyond what I can say here, you can check out my writing on the poetry thread that I titled Wooden Jesus, before remembering there was already a song of that title. if you do, let me know if my stance is clearer............
thanks for being respectful; truly
Hi. Nice to have another believer on the thread. I too have no commitment to, or great love for the denominational institutions that make up what many believe to be 'Christianity', that why I refered to myself in the opening post only as a 'disciple of Jesus'. I think that He calls us to follow HIM, not any religion formulated by man. His teachings are enough, and his Holy spirit in us guides us and empowers us to do His will. I will check your poetry.
Hello again Cosmo and Sweet Potato.
Yeah, we have got a bit sidetracked by this Intelligent Design debate but I dont think thats all my fault. I have tried to bring it back to PJ twice by posting my interpretation of 'insignificance' but everyone just wanted to talk about creationism/evolution etc. not that I mind, its been a good debate so far I think. I disagree with you both about my relationship with PJ's music. I didn't just learn more about their beliefs during the Binaural period, this was when Ed became an atheist, and his lyrics began to reflect this from Binaural onwards, hence they got less spiritual and more political. Others on this thread have felt this change, even though they are not Christians. From ten to Yeild, I'm pretty sure Ed was open to the idea of God and searching for truth. On 'Given to fly', I think he was reflecting on the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. As someone has pointed out, Ed himself said that it was a song about 'faith' but which faith? What other spiritual leader walked on water, was stripped and stabbed by 'faceless men', came back to share the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere, still stands, still gives his love away, and has a love that is 'saved'. I suggest there is only one, Jesus of Nazareth. My opinion is that around the same time he was investigating the life of Jesus, Ed also started seriously reading about evolution. He made his choice and his commitment to darwinism became quite obvious on the next couple of PJ albums, on 'Big wave' for example, Ed celebrates it. If you look at the quote on celebrityatheistslist.com, which was, I think, eds first public confession of Atheism (just after making Yeild), you will see that he sites evolutionary theory to justify his atheism. Peace.
...
I hate to keep mulling over this... but, you continue to make incorrect statements:
"I didn't just learn more about their beliefs during the Binaural period, this was when Ed became an atheist, and his lyrics began to reflect this from Binaural onwards, hence they got less spiritual and more political"
Ed has been an atheist since, at least, the inception of Pearl Jam. And he has always had very strong political opinions. Is it possible that you were making assumptions on Ed's early writings because you wanted them to fit within your frame of religious conscript? Meaning you drafted Ed towards Christianity to make clearer sense of the lyrics.
...
And this is an example of my point that states one religion's attempt claim to be the truth:
[While making personal interpretations about the lyrics to the song, 'Given To Fly'] "I suggest there is only one, Jesus of Nazareth."
What does this mean? There is only ONE interpretation of 'Given To Fly'... which happens to be your opinion.
---
There are many interpretations of this song and the only person who really knows what they actually mean... is Eddie Vedder.
"Then there's "Given to Fly," a soaring, U2-esque anthem about a human blessed with the ability to fly. The man returns to Earth to share "the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere," but is greeted with violence. He continues to try to give away what he's learned.
Vedder imagined the song as a children's book, "a 20-page cardboard book with a line on each page and a picture to go with it. It's a fable, that's all. The music almost gives you this feeling of flight, and I really love singing the part at the end, which is about rising above anybody's comments about what you do and still giving your love away. You know -- not becoming bitter and reclusive, not condemning the whole world because of the actions of a few."
...
God or no God? Which is wrong and which is right? I have no idea. But, I do know enough to state that I don't know if Christianity is the one path towards God and I doubt if the person who claims to know... does know. I know he/she believes she knows... to which I say, "Bless you and be on your way". But, I am never going to go out on a limb and proclaim that anyone else's beliefs are 'Wrong'. But one of your claims is absolutely wrong... people who believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution are atheists. The reason why I KNOW this is because I am one.
...
The bottom line... continue your search for truth in your way and let Ed go his.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
But one of your claims is absolutely wrong... people who believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution are atheists. The reason why I KNOW this is because I am one.
Could you please quote me making this claim.
The bottom line... continue your search for truth in your way and let Ed go his.
This is your 'bottom line' not mine. I have found the truth already thanks. Could you please quote me saying that I will not let Ed go his own way.
Ok.
Step 1. Proffessor Michael Behe OBSERVED that the bacterial flagellar motor has fourty working parts necessary to its function.
Step 2. Proffesor Michael Behe FORMULATED A HYPOTHESIS called 'irreducible complexity'. Behe defined irreducibly complex systems as
‘a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’
This observation followed Darwin's own criteria for testing the validity of his theory, as given in 'On The Origin Of the Species':
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’
Step 3. Proffessor Michael Behe PREDICTED that if individual parts were removed from 'irreducibly complex systems' the systems would cease to function. Therefore, since these systems need to have all fourty parts present simultaneously in order to function, they could not have 'evolved' by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'. Therefore darwin's theory 'absolutely breaks down'.
step 4. Microbiologist Dr. Scott Minnich has performed many knockout EXPERIMENTS that put 'irreducible complexity' to the test. Minnich's work confirmed Behe's PREDICTIONS, however - oh damn it, heres is where you have won i guess, the mainstream scientific journals refused to publish Minnich's results because they appear to support ID, which we all know is 'not science'. Since they have not been published in the 'peer-reviewed literature', we can safely conclude therefore that Behe and Minnich's work is definitly 'not science' but 'religion'.
Still, if anyone wants to see this research, here it is:
...
You didn't check out that NOVA segment, did you? If you did... I have no other choice but to give you an 'F'.
...
Check out the following transcript... then look up 'Yersinia pestis', the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. The so-called 'useless' flagellar tail that is used as a propeller for the flagellar bacteria is used as a stinger to deliver poison by Yersinia pestis.
Read on through the transcript to the part about the mouse trap for a very simple example.
---
ref. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html
NOVA: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, they have. And if you advance to the next slide...
In 1998, a man named David DeRosier wrote an article in the journal Cell, which is a very prestigious scientific journal, entitled "The Turn of the Screw, The Bacterial Flagellar Motor." David DeRosier is a professor of biology at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and has worked on the bacterial flagellar motor for most of his career. In that article, he makes the statement, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human." So David DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed.
DAVID DEROSIER (Brandeis University): What I wrote was, "This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human." But that doesn't mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution.
NARRATOR: Using an electron microscope, DeRosier produces ghostly pictures like this one, revealing the inner workings of what's been called the world's most efficient motor.
DAVID DEROSIER: This is the drive shaft. This transmits this torque generated by the motor that would then turn the propeller, which would push the bacterial cell through the fluid.
NARRATOR: Michael Behe has argued that the flagellum could not have evolved, since its parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled.
But evidence that refutes Behe's claim of irreducible complexity comes from a tiny syringe that injects poison, found in some of the nastiest of all bacteria.
DAVID DEROSIER: This is a structure found, for example, in Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. Look at the similarities. Now, this structure doesn't rotate, but it still has to extend this structure, which is equivalent to the rod, the driveshaft here. It has to extend that, because it needs this little channel. It's like, sort of like a syringe. So the virulence factors that are made inside the cell, which is down here, can be exported, pushed up into this hole and exported out through this long, kind of, needle, perhaps into a cell in your body or mine, and thereby create misery.
NARRATOR: And it turns out the two structures look similar for a reason. The syringe on the right is made of a subset of the very same protein types found in the base of the flagellum on the left, though the syringe is missing proteins found in the motor and, therefore, can't produce rotary motion. It functions perfectly as an apparatus for transmitting disease.
DAVID DEROSIER: So if we think about what it means to be irreducibly complex, the argument is that if you take away even one of these proteins, that the structure cannot function. And yet here is a structure that functions, that is missing several of the proteins, and yet here it is, a working, viable organelle of the bacterium. So indeed, the structure is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex.
NARRATOR: To emphasize DeRosier's point, Miller arrived at court making an unusual fashion statement.
KENNETH R. MILLER: As an example of what irreducible complexity means, advocates of intelligent design like to point to a very common machine: the mousetrap. And the mousetrap is composed of five parts. It has a base plate, the catch, a spring, a little hammer that actually does the dirty work, and a bait holder.
The mousetrap will not work if any one of these five parts are taken away. That's absolutely true. But remember the key notion of irreducible complexity, and that is that this whole machine is completely useless until all the parts are in place. Well, that, that turns out not to be true.
And I'll give you an example. What I have right here is a mousetrap from which I've removed two of the five parts. I still have the base plate, the spring, and the hammer. Now you can't catch any mice with this, so it's not a very good mousetrap. But it turns out that, despite the missing parts, it makes a perfectly good, if somewhat inelegant, tie clip.
And when we look at the favorite examples for irreducible complexity, and the bacterial flagellum is a perfect example, we find the molecular equivalent of my tie clip, which is we see parts of the machine missing—two, three, four, maybe even 20—parts, but still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could be favored by evolution. And that's why the irreducible complexity argument falls apart.
...
Please, Try Again.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
My my Cosmo, youve learnt to cut and paste.
Yes, you can use the hammer of a mousetrap as a tieclip if you want, i'm sure it will look nice on you, but it wont help you catch any mice.
Behe has never said that the parts of an IC system cannot be used in different systems, he explored this in his book 'Darwin's Black box' ten years ago. Miller can make as many straw men as he likes and destroy them in as many ways as he likes, and people like you Cosmo will believe him because you havn't read Behe's book. Please, if you want to engage with me about ID, read at least ONE ID book. Otherwise it seems pretty pointless.
This is your 'bottom line' not mine. I have found the truth already thanks. Could you please quote me saying that I will not let Ed go his own way.
Could you please quote me making this claim.
"He made his choice and his commitment to darwinism became quite obvious on the next couple of PJ albums, on 'Big wave' for example, Ed celebrates it. If you look at the quote on celebrityatheistslist.com, which was, I think, eds first public confession of Atheism (just after making Yeild), you will see that he sites evolutionary theory to justify his atheism. "
---
This is your 'bottom line' not mine. I have found the truth already thanks. Could you please quote me saying that I will not let Ed go his own way.
"However, although remnants remained on Binaural, it soon became clear that Ed had seen the truth, counted the cost, and turned back. Now I am dismayed by the anti-Christian videos on tenclubs activism page and the 'God is a delusion' messages in Ed's lyrics. I feel gutted that ed did not come along for the ride, he's missed the greatest discovery of all - Life as a disciple of Jesus."
"The songs seem to take Ed back to where he was in the Yield period, but when they are over he is left in the Godless world he has chosen for himself. It's not that i've lost a friend, more that a friend has become lost."
...
There...
Now, instead of making me search backwards to quote yourself, it may make it easier for everyone reading this if you simply remembered what you have previously stated and save us all some time and energy.
...
And I am glad you have found your (subjective) truth and I really hope it serves you well.
In the mean time.. I am out to look for the absolute truth... which I know is out there... and I know i wil probably never find. My hapiness lies in the journey.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
My my Cosmo, youve learnt to cut and paste.
Yes, you can use the hammer of a mousetrap as a tieclip if you want, i'm sure it will look nice on you, but it wont help you catch any mice.
Behe has never said that the parts of an IC system cannot be used in different systems, he explored this in his book 'Darwin's Black box' ten years ago. Miller can make as many straw men as he likes and destroy them in as many ways as he likes, and people like you Cosmo will believe him because you havn't read Behe's book. Please, if you want to engage with me about ID, read at least ONE ID book. Otherwise it seems pretty pointless.
...
Okay... I see you are getting a bit riled here. There is no need to resort to juvenile tactics.
No one is trying to dissuade your faith... I'm just arguing your claims in support of Intelligent Design as a legitimate science.
Did you even read the partial transctipt?
Michael Behe uses David DeRosier's article to attempt to prove his point that the flagellar bacteria is "irreducibly complex" and the loss of one or more parts to the 'motor' renders it useless. You even include this portion in your own arguement:
"‘a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’ "
David DeRosier is the one who counters Behe's claims and states, "What I wrote was, "This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human." But that doesn't mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution."
...
I'm not argueing against Behe... his SOURCE for his findings is.
...
And does 'Of Pandas and People' [the textbook of intelligen design] count as one ID book? Because, if it does.. then, i think my answer would be, 'Yes'.
And I did not find anything other than opinion that all life began at the same time... some 6,000 years ago.
...
But, if you give me specific Behe reading material to research... I will.
...
But, you STILL get an 'F' for that flagellar bacteria thing.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes. you did rile me a bit Cosmo, not because of the strength of your argument but because you made claim about me that are untrue. This is the claim that you said I had made:
But one of your claims is absolutely wrong... people who believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution are atheists.
NONE of the quotes you have given say anything remotely like this.
And does 'Of Pandas and People' [the textbook of intelligen design] count as one ID book? Because, if it does.. then, i think my answer would be, 'Yes'.
And I did not find anything other than opinion that all life began at the same time... some 6,000 years ago.
Yes, ‘Of Pandas and People’ IS an ID book but I’m finding it difficult to believe that you have really read it because it does NOT say that life began ‘some 6000 years ago’. If you would like to quote the page where it says this, we can see if you are being truthful.
The book has been accused of being ‘Young Earth Creationist’ solely because Early drafts used the term ‘creation’, which it defined as:
“Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
However, because people like to associate this term with Young earth Creationism, the authors clarified this misunderstanding by replacing the term ‘creation’ with the term ‘intelligent design’, which means the same thing but avoids the misunderstanding.
Comments
Oh please. They took the exact same book and changed nothing. Nothing expect that little word. The entire thing is the same. Defintion and all. You're grasping.
I put the quotation marks around scientific. Like this: their "scientific" ideas were debunked and disproved.
You should not make such allegations, I did read it and I read Miller's response too. Have you?
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
naděje umírá poslední
No, I don't care. God could have created evolution too. Like I said a million times before: I don't know, I don't care. To me there is no god, there will never be a god. If there does exist one than I was wrong.
Foundations are crumbling, eh? False. The science is hard to disprove, I think at one point ID may have tried, but it seems they've given up and started a smear campaign. One that is working in religious countries.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I completely agree with this. Any scientist, any evolutionary scientist, any average person would agree with that. This is not new. This is not special. Evolution is debated exstensively within the scientific community. There are many things, such as the importance of certain mechanisms, they disagree with.
Again there you go: the few... There could be thousands. You don't know. You're pretending like there are only five scientists how believe in god.
In the first step of the scientific method we have observation, operational definitons and measurements and counting.
In the second step you formulate hypotheses. You give a hypothetical explanation for your observations and the other things in step one.
Step three, predictions. A useful hypothesis will allow predictions. Predictions are made by reasoning.
The last step is the experiments. This means all the previous steps should be testable. You test all the stuff from the other steps. When you find out you were wrong, you start over. When you find out you were right, you publish your research in peer-reviewed magazine. Other scientists will challenge your research, do the same experiment etc.
That is the scientific method. ID is at step one. That is why it is not science at all.
If you disagree, tim, you can easily prove me wrong, just provide me with the four steps.
naděje umírá poslední
Well, its not that difficult to find. Perhaps you could try Amazon.com. Here you go, you can get a used copy for 99 cents.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1779027-0330463?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=darwin+on+trial&x=12&y=22
The problem is that so many scientists do NOT recognise the limitations of science. They think that it is ultimately capable of answering ALL questions about life and the universe precisely because they believe that ALL causes are natural/material.
Sorry Collin but you are wrong to suggest that the Darwinian establishment is open to the possibility that their theory is untrue. Your friends at atheism about.com sum up the prevailing view among Darwinists:
"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."
THAT evolution has occured is a GIVEN in mainstrean biology, any criticism of it, however scientifically legitimate, faces ridicule and accusations of 'religious motivations' as the controversy over ID has shown.
Allowing non-atheistic possibilties for the cause of life and the universe would not destroy science, it would enhance it. Yes people could postulate all kinds of bizare causes, but this does not mean that science would have to regard them as plausible.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Thanks. I hadn't thought about Amazon.
Do you have any proof for this claim whatsoever. Did you interview the majority of scientists. I think not.
I agree with them and with the scientists. It has occured, it is a fact. They are debating about how it occurs, what's important in the process, what's not...
Show me legitimate scientific criticism of the theory of evolution.
So, alchemy would enchance science how? Astrology would enchance science how?
naděje umírá poslední
I noticed... I stopped caring quite a while ago!
edit: wait, that didn't come out right.
naděje umírá poslední
i just dont see that if you are dead certain in what you believe that anything could compromise that. as ive said before i was 11 years old when i became an atheist and in the ensuing 32 years NOTHING has made me question the conclusions i have come to. surely that has to count for something.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.
I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.
naděje umírá poslední
i was 11/12. i asked the questions and they were not answered. i was thrown out of religious class more than once and so i figured i had to sort it out for myself. ive done that. what speaks to me the most is that there has never been any doubt for me. i came to a conclusion and nothing anyone has ever said to me has made me question my conviction.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The last time I checked... Christianity was considered to be a religion. Did something change since then? And the doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus in the physical incarnation of God... and only through Jesus Christ, will mortal men find a path to God. That pretty much qualifies as a religion... I think. And to follow a path laid by Christianity... as a Christian... makes it sound like you are a part of the Christian religion. If I'm wrong, please, correct me.
...
The issue I have with religion is the attempt of religions to claim God as their own... exclusively. Religion is how Man created God in his (Man's) image. This way, Man can stake a claim in God and affix all of Man's pettiness and human characteristics and traits onto God. That probably explains why God in the Old Testament is sometimes as petty prick to people.
I ain't buying it. God is better than that. and the issue I have with the Bible (and other Holy Texts) is that it was written by Man, not God. Sure, it is Man... 'Inspired by God', but not by God Himself. Add the fact that the Bible was basically in the sole possession of the Church... that was governed by Men... of power... til about the 1600s... to me... it make me question it. Mostly because I do not trust the Church and the men who run it.
All of this Intelligent Design stuff is just another attempt to insert Christian faith into the sciences. Faith is NOT science. Run repeated and verifiable tests to prove the concept that all life as we know it sprung up at the same time... some 6,000 years ago (not the 3,000,000,000 years the fossil record goes back to) and I will consider it a possiblity. As for now, Intelligent Design is basically trying to portray the Bible as a science text... not the literary prose I see it as.
...
My choice is to eliminate the filter of religion from my life. To seek God on my own means.
As for Jesus... I love His teachings and do my best to follow His example. I am not sure of all of that Son of God/resurrection stuff because it could all be exaggeration, myth or legend that was created ofer the centuries. But, His message was one I accept.
As for the absolute truth... Does God exist? All I know is what I believe I know (which I know is NOT necessarily the absolute truth)... and the only thing I truely know is... no one else knows, either.
Hail, Hail!!!
ahh, sorry- i misread and thought you said you wouldn't believe in ANY (instead of "many") spiritual experiences. :oops:
well, at least you're keeping an open mind, and that's all i'm asking.
peace, baby.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
No problem... baby
naděje umírá poslední
tim, hon, sweetie- NONE of us has the first freakin' CLUE what ed actually believes, nor should we need to know. he's a brilliant, talented, fascinating, charismatic... ROCK STAR. he's not your priest, or your drinking buddy, or your brother. you don't know him personally or, dare i say, in the biblical sense. he's not your f*cking messiah, in other words... you need to believe what you believe and leave this whole "ed has betrayed me" thing behind you. you can do it, buckaroo.
just like i had to get over the fact that he went ahead and had a child with someone other than ME. it still stings... but i'm gonna pull through. and so will you.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
actually, the buddhism as buddha taught it has no such trappings. you should read the book Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen. it explains the stripped down, bare-bones buddhism that i think might appeal to you as much as it does to me.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
hey, no prob. i'm glad my pain can make someone smile. <sniff, sniff>
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I tried to keep it on track... but, it went off on that Intelligent Design tangent.
But, you are absolutely right. From what I read, it sounds as if Tim had misinterpreted Ed's lyrics to fit his (Tim's) religious beliefs... believeing they were on the same track. As time progressed and Tim learned more about where Ed stands on specific issues or beliefs, he (Tim) misinterpreted them as Ed straying from the true path to God... Christianity.
The truth is more likely to be... they were never on the same track to begin with. Ed on his own way and Tim on Tim's own way.
...
Does it change either Tim or Ed? No.
...
Then... there are all of those off tangents that cause it ti stray from the original message. In a sense, possibly the same way religion tends to stray for it's original message as time passes and different people add their personal input into the equation.
Hail, Hail!!!
Hello again Cosmo and Sweet Potato.
Yeah, we have got a bit sidetracked by this Intelligent Design debate but I dont think thats all my fault. I have tried to bring it back to PJ twice by posting my interpretation of 'insignificance' but everyone just wanted to talk about creationism/evolution etc. not that I mind, its been a good debate so far I think. I disagree with you both about my relationship with PJ's music. I didn't just learn more about their beliefs during the Binaural period, this was when Ed became an atheist, and his lyrics began to reflect this from Binaural onwards, hence they got less spiritual and more political. Others on this thread have felt this change, even though they are not Christians. From ten to Yeild, I'm pretty sure Ed was open to the idea of God and searching for truth. On 'Given to fly', I think he was reflecting on the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. As someone has pointed out, Ed himself said that it was a song about 'faith' but which faith? What other spiritual leader walked on water, was stripped and stabbed by 'faceless men', came back to share the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere, still stands, still gives his love away, and has a love that is 'saved'. I suggest there is only one, Jesus of Nazareth. My opinion is that around the same time he was investigating the life of Jesus, Ed also started seriously reading about evolution. He made his choice and his commitment to darwinism became quite obvious on the next couple of PJ albums, on 'Big wave' for example, Ed celebrates it. If you look at the quote on celebrityatheistslist.com, which was, I think, eds first public confession of Atheism (just after making Yeild), you will see that he sites evolutionary theory to justify his atheism. Peace.
For those who don’t know what Collin is referring to here, he is referring to a quote I posted by the famous Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin. Here is the quote again:
”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
Now, Collin has said that, even if Lewontin is correct, this does not score any points for ID. Well actually, if Lewontin is correct, then the central argument of ID (that Darwinism rests on the philosophy of naturalism/materialism rather than evidence) is PROVEN. Naturalism/materialism is an unproven philosophy that, as Lewontin says, is accepted ‘a priori’, (assumed without experience or evidence). This philosophy is the underlying belief that upholds the Darwinian paradigm and assures its victory over its rivals. This has been achieved because naturalism automatically rules out Darwinism’s main rival – design. Thus, once this fact is accepted, we see that Darwinism is not pure science, rather it is a mixture of science and belief just like creationism. ID has arisen in the ideological ‘middle ground’ between the two faith positions by consciously putting aside the presuppositions of both Creationism and Darwinism and letting the evidence speak for itself.
The above quotation that Collin is agreeing with is the statement of ‘dissent from darwinism’ which 700 pHD scientists have now put their names to. You can view this at:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Collin, If you really do ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ and are skeptical about the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life. If you really do believe that Darwinian theory should no longer be accepted a priori, and that instead the evidence that is claimed to support it be re-examined on its own merit without appeals to any prior philosophical commitments, then welcome to the Intelligent Design community.
You got it.
I am glad you asked, because now I have a way of knowing how to explain this about myself; something that I in my heart know but am not always able to put into words.....I will certainly do my best.....
I consider myself a follower of Christ; thus a Christian, and yet then even there are further sub groups that are broken down into the individual religions as you speak that differ in certain beliefs, rituals, sacraments, etc. Their core is based on that they believe that Christ is the saviour, but (I feel ) their practices are broken down into like who is more into the rights and sacraments of the old testament and who is more into the new.
I also find that religion is not always genuine.
perhaps if you desire to know what I mean beyond what I can say here, you can check out my writing on the poetry thread that I titled Wooden Jesus, before remembering there was already a song of that title. if you do, let me know if my stance is clearer............
thanks for being respectful; truly
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Ok.
Step 1. Proffessor Michael Behe OBSERVED that the bacterial flagellar motor has fourty working parts necessary to its function.
Step 2. Proffesor Michael Behe FORMULATED A HYPOTHESIS called 'irreducible complexity'. Behe defined irreducibly complex systems as
‘a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’
This observation followed Darwin's own criteria for testing the validity of his theory, as given in 'On The Origin Of the Species':
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’
Step 3. Proffessor Michael Behe PREDICTED that if individual parts were removed from 'irreducibly complex systems' the systems would cease to function. Therefore, since these systems need to have all fourty parts present simultaneously in order to function, they could not have 'evolved' by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'. Therefore darwin's theory 'absolutely breaks down'.
step 4. Microbiologist Dr. Scott Minnich has performed many knockout EXPERIMENTS that put 'irreducible complexity' to the test. Minnich's work confirmed Behe's PREDICTIONS, however - oh damn it, heres is where you have won i guess, the mainstream scientific journals refused to publish Minnich's results because they appear to support ID, which we all know is 'not science'. Since they have not been published in the 'peer-reviewed literature', we can safely conclude therefore that Behe and Minnich's work is definitly 'not science' but 'religion'.
Still, if anyone wants to see this research, here it is:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2181&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
And if anyone is interested in the AMAZING flagellar motor, check this out!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGC-1g4S3Y
Hi. Nice to have another believer on the thread. I too have no commitment to, or great love for the denominational institutions that make up what many believe to be 'Christianity', that why I refered to myself in the opening post only as a 'disciple of Jesus'. I think that He calls us to follow HIM, not any religion formulated by man. His teachings are enough, and his Holy spirit in us guides us and empowers us to do His will. I will check your poetry.
Take care.
I hate to keep mulling over this... but, you continue to make incorrect statements:
"I didn't just learn more about their beliefs during the Binaural period, this was when Ed became an atheist, and his lyrics began to reflect this from Binaural onwards, hence they got less spiritual and more political"
Ed has been an atheist since, at least, the inception of Pearl Jam. And he has always had very strong political opinions. Is it possible that you were making assumptions on Ed's early writings because you wanted them to fit within your frame of religious conscript? Meaning you drafted Ed towards Christianity to make clearer sense of the lyrics.
...
And this is an example of my point that states one religion's attempt claim to be the truth:
[While making personal interpretations about the lyrics to the song, 'Given To Fly'] "I suggest there is only one, Jesus of Nazareth."
What does this mean? There is only ONE interpretation of 'Given To Fly'... which happens to be your opinion.
---
There are many interpretations of this song and the only person who really knows what they actually mean... is Eddie Vedder.
"Then there's "Given to Fly," a soaring, U2-esque anthem about a human blessed with the ability to fly. The man returns to Earth to share "the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere," but is greeted with violence. He continues to try to give away what he's learned.
Vedder imagined the song as a children's book, "a 20-page cardboard book with a line on each page and a picture to go with it. It's a fable, that's all. The music almost gives you this feeling of flight, and I really love singing the part at the end, which is about rising above anybody's comments about what you do and still giving your love away. You know -- not becoming bitter and reclusive, not condemning the whole world because of the actions of a few."
...
God or no God? Which is wrong and which is right? I have no idea. But, I do know enough to state that I don't know if Christianity is the one path towards God and I doubt if the person who claims to know... does know. I know he/she believes she knows... to which I say, "Bless you and be on your way". But, I am never going to go out on a limb and proclaim that anyone else's beliefs are 'Wrong'. But one of your claims is absolutely wrong... people who believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution are atheists. The reason why I KNOW this is because I am one.
...
The bottom line... continue your search for truth in your way and let Ed go his.
Hail, Hail!!!
Could you please quote me making this claim.
This is your 'bottom line' not mine. I have found the truth already thanks. Could you please quote me saying that I will not let Ed go his own way.
You didn't check out that NOVA segment, did you? If you did... I have no other choice but to give you an 'F'.
...
Check out the following transcript... then look up 'Yersinia pestis', the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. The so-called 'useless' flagellar tail that is used as a propeller for the flagellar bacteria is used as a stinger to deliver poison by Yersinia pestis.
Read on through the transcript to the part about the mouse trap for a very simple example.
---
ref. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html
NOVA: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, they have. And if you advance to the next slide...
In 1998, a man named David DeRosier wrote an article in the journal Cell, which is a very prestigious scientific journal, entitled "The Turn of the Screw, The Bacterial Flagellar Motor." David DeRosier is a professor of biology at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and has worked on the bacterial flagellar motor for most of his career. In that article, he makes the statement, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human." So David DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed.
DAVID DEROSIER (Brandeis University): What I wrote was, "This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human." But that doesn't mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution.
NARRATOR: Using an electron microscope, DeRosier produces ghostly pictures like this one, revealing the inner workings of what's been called the world's most efficient motor.
DAVID DEROSIER: This is the drive shaft. This transmits this torque generated by the motor that would then turn the propeller, which would push the bacterial cell through the fluid.
NARRATOR: Michael Behe has argued that the flagellum could not have evolved, since its parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled.
But evidence that refutes Behe's claim of irreducible complexity comes from a tiny syringe that injects poison, found in some of the nastiest of all bacteria.
DAVID DEROSIER: This is a structure found, for example, in Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. Look at the similarities. Now, this structure doesn't rotate, but it still has to extend this structure, which is equivalent to the rod, the driveshaft here. It has to extend that, because it needs this little channel. It's like, sort of like a syringe. So the virulence factors that are made inside the cell, which is down here, can be exported, pushed up into this hole and exported out through this long, kind of, needle, perhaps into a cell in your body or mine, and thereby create misery.
NARRATOR: And it turns out the two structures look similar for a reason. The syringe on the right is made of a subset of the very same protein types found in the base of the flagellum on the left, though the syringe is missing proteins found in the motor and, therefore, can't produce rotary motion. It functions perfectly as an apparatus for transmitting disease.
DAVID DEROSIER: So if we think about what it means to be irreducibly complex, the argument is that if you take away even one of these proteins, that the structure cannot function. And yet here is a structure that functions, that is missing several of the proteins, and yet here it is, a working, viable organelle of the bacterium. So indeed, the structure is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex.
NARRATOR: To emphasize DeRosier's point, Miller arrived at court making an unusual fashion statement.
KENNETH R. MILLER: As an example of what irreducible complexity means, advocates of intelligent design like to point to a very common machine: the mousetrap. And the mousetrap is composed of five parts. It has a base plate, the catch, a spring, a little hammer that actually does the dirty work, and a bait holder.
The mousetrap will not work if any one of these five parts are taken away. That's absolutely true. But remember the key notion of irreducible complexity, and that is that this whole machine is completely useless until all the parts are in place. Well, that, that turns out not to be true.
And I'll give you an example. What I have right here is a mousetrap from which I've removed two of the five parts. I still have the base plate, the spring, and the hammer. Now you can't catch any mice with this, so it's not a very good mousetrap. But it turns out that, despite the missing parts, it makes a perfectly good, if somewhat inelegant, tie clip.
And when we look at the favorite examples for irreducible complexity, and the bacterial flagellum is a perfect example, we find the molecular equivalent of my tie clip, which is we see parts of the machine missing—two, three, four, maybe even 20—parts, but still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could be favored by evolution. And that's why the irreducible complexity argument falls apart.
...
Please, Try Again.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes, you can use the hammer of a mousetrap as a tieclip if you want, i'm sure it will look nice on you, but it wont help you catch any mice.
Behe has never said that the parts of an IC system cannot be used in different systems, he explored this in his book 'Darwin's Black box' ten years ago. Miller can make as many straw men as he likes and destroy them in as many ways as he likes, and people like you Cosmo will believe him because you havn't read Behe's book. Please, if you want to engage with me about ID, read at least ONE ID book. Otherwise it seems pretty pointless.
"He made his choice and his commitment to darwinism became quite obvious on the next couple of PJ albums, on 'Big wave' for example, Ed celebrates it. If you look at the quote on celebrityatheistslist.com, which was, I think, eds first public confession of Atheism (just after making Yeild), you will see that he sites evolutionary theory to justify his atheism. "
---
This is your 'bottom line' not mine. I have found the truth already thanks. Could you please quote me saying that I will not let Ed go his own way.
"However, although remnants remained on Binaural, it soon became clear that Ed had seen the truth, counted the cost, and turned back. Now I am dismayed by the anti-Christian videos on tenclubs activism page and the 'God is a delusion' messages in Ed's lyrics. I feel gutted that ed did not come along for the ride, he's missed the greatest discovery of all - Life as a disciple of Jesus."
"The songs seem to take Ed back to where he was in the Yield period, but when they are over he is left in the Godless world he has chosen for himself. It's not that i've lost a friend, more that a friend has become lost."
...
There...
Now, instead of making me search backwards to quote yourself, it may make it easier for everyone reading this if you simply remembered what you have previously stated and save us all some time and energy.
...
And I am glad you have found your (subjective) truth and I really hope it serves you well.
In the mean time.. I am out to look for the absolute truth... which I know is out there... and I know i wil probably never find. My hapiness lies in the journey.
Hail, Hail!!!
Okay... I see you are getting a bit riled here. There is no need to resort to juvenile tactics.
No one is trying to dissuade your faith... I'm just arguing your claims in support of Intelligent Design as a legitimate science.
Did you even read the partial transctipt?
Michael Behe uses David DeRosier's article to attempt to prove his point that the flagellar bacteria is "irreducibly complex" and the loss of one or more parts to the 'motor' renders it useless. You even include this portion in your own arguement:
"‘a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’ "
David DeRosier is the one who counters Behe's claims and states, "What I wrote was, "This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human." But that doesn't mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution."
...
I'm not argueing against Behe... his SOURCE for his findings is.
...
And does 'Of Pandas and People' [the textbook of intelligen design] count as one ID book? Because, if it does.. then, i think my answer would be, 'Yes'.
And I did not find anything other than opinion that all life began at the same time... some 6,000 years ago.
...
But, if you give me specific Behe reading material to research... I will.
...
But, you STILL get an 'F' for that flagellar bacteria thing.
Hail, Hail!!!
NONE of the quotes you have given say anything remotely like this.
Yes, ‘Of Pandas and People’ IS an ID book but I’m finding it difficult to believe that you have really read it because it does NOT say that life began ‘some 6000 years ago’. If you would like to quote the page where it says this, we can see if you are being truthful.
The book has been accused of being ‘Young Earth Creationist’ solely because Early drafts used the term ‘creation’, which it defined as:
“Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
However, because people like to associate this term with Young earth Creationism, the authors clarified this misunderstanding by replacing the term ‘creation’ with the term ‘intelligent design’, which means the same thing but avoids the misunderstanding.