Ed and God

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

The Darwinian mantra: 'Intelligent design is not science' becomes more lame and more tedious every time I hear it. Yes Collin, if your definition of science excludes the possibility of non natural causes for life and the universe, then by this definition, ID is 'not science', however scientists are increasingly refusing to conform to this definition and however many times you say 'ID is not science' this will not change the fact that it is not, as you say 'as simple as that'. Before the Darwinian revolution, most scientists defined science as something like 'investigating God's creation'. By this definition, many could say of the new Darwinian theory 'Evolution is not science' because it broke the rules. This kind of argumentation is so closed-minded, so agenda driven, so polarized and dogma-laden that it is time we put it to bed and discussed these important issues with a little more humility and open-mindedness.

Collin, your suggestion that ID has broken the rules because 'God is not testable' reveals a serious lack of understanding about what ID actually is. ID does not try to 'test God', ID looks for evidence of design in nature.
ID exists because Philip Johnson pointed out in his book 'Darwin on trial' that Darwinian Theory is not nearly as empirically supported as it has been thought to be, and that, like Biblical creationism, it is based primarily on a belief. Both are, in a sense fundamentalisms, the creationist has faith in the Bible and the Evolutionist has faith in naturalism/materialism. This fact has been accepted by many more thoughtful evolutionists, including Michael Ruse. ID is not, as many have tried to argue, Biblical creationism in disguise, sure some IDers are creationists but many are not. ID biochemist Michael Denton has called belief in literal Genesis 'foolish and unscientific', likewise, young earth creationist Henry Morris has criticised ID for being a 'big tent' where people of many philosophical and religious persuasions may dwell.

I've already addressed the problems of allowing the supernatural into science, you chose not to address them. The video I showed also explained it quite clearly.

I'm interested in your response, tim. You should also know that "the important issues" are being discussed with open-mindedness.

My suggestion that ID broke the rules because god is not testable does not show me misunderstanding of ID. It shows your misunderstanding of science, and basically evolution as well. So, if you could, please comment on the problems of bringing god and the supernatural into science. Because as long as you don't understand what science is, we'll be stuck.

Regardless of the fact that god cannot be tested and ID is not science, scientists have addressed ID and challenged ID claims. They've done so scientifically. I'm waiting for scientific proof that the ID theories are correct. You won't find any, however, because the research isn't there.

So, science has been open-minded about ID. It addressed the evidence.

This was also featured in the video and I think it's quite interesting and it really illustrates were ID stands:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This statement singles out evolution in a way that misrepresents its scientific standing, misleads students as to the nature of science theories, conveys a false sense of certainty with regard to other scientific theories, and serves, as far as I am able to tell, no scientific or educational purpose."

Here's the sticker proposed by Ken Miller:

"This textbook contains material on science. Science is built around theories, which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

It seems ID is the close-minded one here, doesn't it.

However, ID does NOT use the Bible to interpret the evidence, and is therefore MORE scientific than either Darwinism or creationism. ID has no religious premise, it is open to both natural and supernatural causes for life (some IDers think the designers were aliens). Unlike the Darwinian paradigm, ID is willing to follow where the evidence leads, even if it points beyond natural causation.

:eek:

I've yet to see evidence ID is actually anything else than creationism. Did you see the video on "intelligent design" textbook Of Pandas and People. It clearly shows they just replaced the word 'creationism' or words related to it with word 'design'.

What do you say about that?

And ID cannot be more scientific than the theory of evolution because it's not science. It's not science because it allows supernatural explanations, it makes no predictions and cannot be verified through repeatable experiments. Furthermore, they did come up with a few 'scientific' ideas, these have been debunked and disproved, however.

ID is not willing to follow where the evidence leads because right now the evidence still leads to evolution, not to an intelligent designer.

Atheists are a tiny minority in this world, only 8% of the population in Britain (and much less in the US), however Darwinism has given them a share of intellectual power that far exceeds their number.Science has been ruled for far too long by an atheist elite, who are rather like the priests of former ages, controlling what people think by setting the perameters of what counts as 'knowledge'.

I don't know where you got this little idea but you need to stop watching bullshit propaganda. There are plenty of scientists who believe in god, plenty.

If you are going to make more of these ridiculous claims I expect you to back them up with evidence, facts, numbers and sources. My guess is you don't have the faintest idea who many scientists actually believe in god, especially in the US.

This is what I call a smear campaign, tim. And you've fallen for it and you perpetuate it. The whole idea that science is dominated by an atheist elite is just a christian conspiracy theory. Jjust look at the video I posted earlier. The person who criticizes ID is professor Kenneth Miller, a roman catholic. He even expressed criticism about Dawkins, whom he thinks uses science as a tool to promote his atheist worldview. This disproves your theory. Sorry, tim.

Kenneth Miller wrote a book you might want to read: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

For those who like utube links, I just found this rather amusing video of Richard Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k

Check out his explanation:

"Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question."

do you believe him?

I can't help but laugh. You actually think those 11 seconds mean anything?

You know if you do want to know his answer to that question, why don't you read his books and address the science instead of attacking him? The video is even edited :rolleyes:

Smear campaign.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

neither side- believers and non-believers - will convince the other side of anything. regarding religious faith, you either have it, or you don't. being open to it definitely helps you if faith is what you WANT. but if you don't, then no amount of intellectual curiosity will get you there.

i can say this because i've been on both sides of it and have truly, deeply believed what i thought was true, and shook my head at myself for having ever doubted such "truth", on both sides- believing and non-believing.

there was a period of time when i was deeply religious. i hadn't been to church in years (was raised catholic). then i stepped into an episcopal service and felt transformed. i was in. deep. i converted. i had myself confirmed at age 33 into the episcopal faith. i was very active in my church- i became a vestry member, i ran the outreach program. this went on for three years. my newfound religiosity confounded my family and friends. but i was happy.

then it began slipping away. there were some changes at the church- the woman priest, whom i'd become fond of and who, to me, represented so much that was different from the catholic church, left my parish for another job. a man i had befriended and felt close to left as well, amidst a nasty divorce. my bf at the time (now my husband) sunk into a difficult depression, for unrelated reasons. i began to no longer find solace and comfort in my church. i began to realize that a large part of my attachment to this particular faith community was because it was a community- which i had been hungering for all my life. i am an only child and had always been attracted to friends and b/f's from large families. so when my church community began to change and shift and relationships were slipping away, i lost my strong desire to be part of that community. i gradually stopped attending services, and eventually pulled away entirely.

i DO think that, during those three years, i DID have real faith in Jesus. i still believe that he existed and had great wisdom, but i'm not so sure about the whole I Am the Way thing.

so now i'm where i am now. i am more or less walking a stripped-down version of the buddhist path. no cultural trappings, no "worship" or belief in things i can't see or experience myself. i try to meditate regularly. i try to live honestly. i try to approach life with less attachment to everything, since that's where suffering comes from. i try to be a peaceful mom and wife and daughter and woman. that's the best i can do.

so, while the ultra-atheists like dawkins say some things that make sense to me, i don't subscribe to their angry rantings about religion being the source of all evil in the world. i think certain interpretations of religious wisdom is what brings about evil and suffering. and it's not just "extremists" who perpetuate such negative energy. i think even middle-of-the-road regigious folk can be VERY hostile towards those who believe differently, or those who don't belive at all. we can see it right here, on these baords. BUT that goes both ways, too. i know atheists who are openly hostile to anyone who even hints at having faith of some sort. at some point, it's got to stop. both sides need to live and let live, and stop trying to convince- or annihilate- the "others". it's suicide.

just by two cents!

peace

I completely agree when we're talking about philosophies. But when we're talking about science, there are these little things we have to consider namely facts.

JohnWesleyHarding27

im getting dizzy from all this circular reasoning...round and round we go!!!! (puke)

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

I completely agree when we're talking about philosophies. But when we're talking about science, there are these little things we have to consider namely facts.

that's swell, but there's really nothing to agree or disagree about. i'm not advocating for anything here, just telling my own story.

but i would advise having a little less arrogance about said "facts" and a little more tolerance of people's individual spiritual experiences.

for instance, just because we don't have the ability to quantify or prove/disprove the efficacy of prayer in helping someone recover from illness, doesn't mean it doesn't work. it just means that science hasn't figured out a way to explain it, or explain it away.

sometimes, unwavering atheism can be as blinding as religious faith. each is an extreme that refuses the possibility of the other. both are dangerous, imo.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

that's swell, but there's really nothing to agree or disagree about. i'm not advocating for anything here, just telling my own story.

but i would advise having a little less arrogance about said "facts" and a little more tolerance of people's individual spiritual experiences.

for instance, just because we don't have the ability to quantify or prove/disprove the efficacy of prayer in helping someone recover from illness, doesn't mean it doesn't work. it just means that science hasn't figured out a way to explain it, or explain it away.

sometimes, unwavering atheism can be as blinding as religious faith. each is an extreme that refuses the possibility of the other. both are dangerous, imo.

I know you're not advocating anything. I just agree with what you wrote.

Facts are facts regardless your individual spiritual experience. I don't think it's arrogant to acknowledge that. Maybe it's not politically correct to point out that certain beliefs are simply false, but I don't really care about being politically correct.

About prayer, that's a bad example to start with. But even so I'll never say it is a fact it doesn't work, I don't have anything against prayer. I will trust the doctor, though and not rely on prayer when I'm sick. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying I don't believe in it. If you want to believe in it, go ahead.

I've said it before, the whole god issue is not important to me. I really really don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't affect me and as long as you're not causing harm. I do have a problem with religion posing as science, in fact, I have a problem with all pseudoscience because it does affect me and it does cause harm.

grazman

timsinclair wrote:

I hesitate to continue with you grazman but since I cannot tell if your mockery is lighthearted or malicious. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Its lighthearted mockery, i find you hilarious

timsinclair wrote:

It is likely that the dinosaurs, like many species did not thrive in the very different post-flood climate, however many believe that some survived until as recently as the 15th century AD.

Many people dont believe dinosaurs were around in the 15th century, no Tim. Many many people (in fact the vast majority of people on planet earth) believe they died out millions of years ago. I love how the noahs ark story has really screwed up your theory and now your desperately trying to believe dinosaurs were around a few hundred years ago by searching ridiculous websites on the internet and posting links. Because if you actually switch on your logic, reason and common sense switch inside your brain and admit dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, it would blow your whole creationist theory apart and you wont admit it. You talk about me living in a box and not opening my mind, i think that very much applies to you. You discard hard scientific evidence and data and prefer to believe the 'many' writing that there were dragons back in the 15th century so it fits your theory.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

I know you're not advocating anything. I just agree with what you wrote.

Facts are facts regardless your individual spiritual experience. I don't think it's arrogant to acknowledge that. Maybe it's not politically correct to point out that certain beliefs are simply false, but I don't really care about being politically correct.

About prayer, that's a bad example to start with. But even so I'll never say it is a fact it doesn't work, I don't have anything against prayer. I will trust the doctor, though and not rely on prayer when I'm sick. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying I don't believe in it. If you want to believe in it, go ahead.

I've said it before, the whole god issue is not important to me. I really really don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't affect me and as long as you're not causing harm. I do have a problem with religion posing as science, in fact, I have a problem with all pseudoscience because it does affect me and it does cause harm.

i agree that ID should not be taught in schools, or if it IS taught, should be part of a philosophy or religion course and NOT as anything even remotely connected to science.

BUT, you are still missing my point about your arrogance. it IS arrogant to assume that science has everything figured out. for proof, just look back 100 years at science itself. what we know now, seemed absurd then. it's not because it really WAS absurd. we just didn't know how to explain it or understand it back then. the same holds true for certain psychological experiences (religious faith being among them) affecting the physical self. just think of psychosomatic illness. 100 years ago, people suffering from illness brought on by their thinking would have been branded insane and stuck in a straight jacket, put into an asylum and never be seen again. now we give them medicine, for things we call ulcers, or stress-related insomnia, or depression.

the same way the mind can make us physically ill, why couldn't the mind have a POSITIVE affect on our health? i'm not saying you don't also trust your doctor. but there have even been studies showing that cancer patients can tolerate chemo and radiation better if they meditate or pray or what have you. to just flat out say that people who keep an open mind to such things are delusional or wrong, IS arrogant.

Collin

For example, I have no problem with people who believe in alternative medicine. I'm not saying all alternative medicine doesn't work, but there are certain 'cures' and 'treatments' that have been tested repeatedly and simply don't work. These cures and treatments are sold to people as being real and effective. The people who do this give out misinformation, they deceive people - desperate, sick people - and they make them believe it will actually cure them, meanwhile they're stealing every last penny these people have.

It is exactly this that timsinclair and ID people want. Well, I don't think they want people being scammed. But allowing the supernatural into science opens that exact door. And it is this that scientists want to prevent.

Of course, the ID proponents have created a war against science. They continue to create propaganda for their wonderful field of "science", however, they forget to mention that they're seriously lacking in the scientific research department. I've read about one ID proponent who has admitted this. He said they don't have a theory, just a few guesses and intuitions.

In their crusade against science, they created a conspiracy, namely that science is dominated by an atheist elite, who want to keep out ID because it is 'dangerous' and poses a 'threat'. It is a fact that this is not true.

The scientific community has answered the ID community, though. Not only by exposing the movement for what it is but it has also looked at the scientific "proof" that points to a intelligent designer. They've countered these claims with vast amounts of scientific, verifiable, repeatable research. This can all be found easily. Yet the ID community continues with the propaganda videos, continues to spread the same old claims... and teaching it as fact.

I think it is very clear that ID is a religious political movement.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

i agree that ID should not be taught in schools, or if it IS taught, should be part of a philosophy or religion course and NOT as anything even remotely connected to science.

BUT, you are still missing my point about your arrogance. it IS arrogant to assume that science has everything figured out. for proof, just look back 100 years at science itself. what we know now, seemed absurd then. it's not because it really WAS absurd. we just didn't know how to explain it or understand it back then. the same holds true for certain psychological experiences (religious faith being among them) affecting the physical self. just think of psychosomatic illness. 100 years ago, people suffering from illness brought on by their thinking would have been branded insane and stuck in a straight jacket, put into an asylum and never be seen again. now we give them medicine, for things we call ulcers, or stress-related insomnia, or depression.

the same way the mind can make us physically ill, why couldn't the mind have a POSITIVE affect on our health? i'm not saying you don't also trust your doctor. but there have even been studies showing that cancer patients can tolerate chemo and radiation better if they meditate or pray or what have you. to just flat out say that people who keep an open mind to such things are delusional or wrong, IS arrogant.

Where have I ever said science has figured everything out and that people who believe these things (prayer etc) are delusional.

Oh yeah, that's right I never said that but thanks for calling me arrogant, anyway.

Allow me to quote myself:

arrogant poster wrote:

I'll never say it is a fact it doesn't work, I don't have anything against prayer.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

i agree that ID should not be taught in schools, or if it IS taught, should be part of a philosophy or religion course and NOT as anything even remotely connected to science.

That's exactly what they want to do.

They have a theory - and I don't mean a scientific one - that is not supported by facts, by research, by evidence, that has been disproved...

And that's all they have right now. They're not interested in research and finding things out, they're fairly busy with trying to get ID taught in schools and making documentaries about how the "elite atheist" scientific community oppresses ID.

sweetpotato

i think you're confusing what i'm saying with what this tim guy is saying. i think ID is crap. the reason i think it's crap is that it refuses to acknowledge certain FACTS that have been established time and again by various researchers and methods. and the fact that IDers want it presented as "science" is ludicrous. they nedd to crawl back into the cave they came from. you know, the one where they go to hide from the dinosaurs.

that said, my assertion that you are being arrogant is based on your various statements to the effect that religious experience is not scientifically provable and therefore not AS VALID as scientific "facts". my point is that, as someone who clearly puts all of his eggs in the science basket, you need to at least acknowledge that the basket is still pretty empty when it comes to understanding the universe. and things we know NOW used to be considered crazy or weren't even thought of at all, because we didn't have the ability to conceive of them or understand their meaning. if you can acknowledge that, then you also have to acknowledge the possibility that religious/spiritual experience MAY BE another of those kooky things that, down the road 25, 50 or 100 years from now, WILL be widely accepted as true and real, even by scientists. i'm just saying, keep an open mind to the possibility. otherwise, you become as closed off as the goofballs who refuse to accept the theory of evolution.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

that said, my assertion that you are being arrogant is based on your various statements to the effect that religious experience is not scientifically provable and therefore not AS VALID as scientific "facts".

Why would you call something you cannot prove a fact?

my point is that, as someone who clearly puts all of his eggs in the science basket, you need to at least acknowledge that the basket is still pretty empty when it comes to understanding the universe.

I acknowledge that science doesn't have all the answers. If it did it would be obsolete. I never claimed otherwise. Even in this thread I have said that if science ever found evidence that pointed towards a designer I'd believe it.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

Why would you call something you cannot prove a fact?

?? i didn't.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

?? i didn't.

You're right. I misread.

But anyway, I don't know which various statements you are referring to but I never said religious experiences aren't "valid".

So, please stop putting words into my mouth.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

You're right. I misread.

But anyway, I don't know which various statements you are referring to but I never said religious experiences aren't "valid".

So, please stop putting words into my mouth.

okay, fine, let's not split hairs. why don't you just tell me here- what IS your opinion of religious/spiritual experience?

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

okay, fine, let's not split hairs. why don't you just tell me here- what IS your opinion of religious/spiritual experience?

I don't believe in a god. So naturally I don't believe in anything that is related to god. Spiritual experience is a broad term, but I can say I'm sure I wouldn't believe in many of them.

That being said, I do believe that these experiences are real to people. I think these experiences can be explained and eventually will be explained.

People have tied human experiences and actions to the supernatural for ages. Some people were said to be possessed by the devil, in modern medicine we can explain the actions and behaviour of these people.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

I don't believe in a god. So naturally I don't believe in anything that is related to god. Spiritual experience is a broad term, but I can say I'm sure I wouldn't believe in many of them.

That being said, I do believe that these experiences are real to people. I think these experiences can be explained and eventually will be explained.

People have tied human experiences and actions to the supernatural for ages. Some people were said to be possessed by the devil, in modern medicine we can explain the actions and behaviour of these people.

okay, but what does the third paragraph have to do with the first two? you're jumping to a conclusion there that spiritual experience is by definition somehow "super"natural. why can't it be perfectly natural? i think you're confusing religious dogma (i.e., worship of or belief in a supernatural being, or "god") with spiritual experience. you need to keep it straight in order to have an informed conversation about the topic, whether you "believe" in these experiences or not.

Cosmo

timsinclair wrote:

Your post about intelligent Design being 'not science' serves to illustrate Philip Johnson's argument. Your statement is based on the popular definition of science that hold that only naturalistic explanations of the world are scientific. If only naturalistic explanations count as science then Darwinism wins by default because it automatically rules out its only rival (creation by an intelligent designer). If this definition of science is true then Einstein, Newton, and pretty much all the great scientists of history are 'not scientists' as they believed that God is the cause of the universe. When naturalism became the dominant philosophy in science, people thought that the cell was little more than a glob of jelly. They had no idea of the staggering complexity that we now observe inside the cell, the DNA molecule, for example has been called 'the most efficient information bearing system in the universe'. It is time design was back on the table, and it is, but the Darwinian establishment is petrified so they just keep telling everyone that ID is 'not science' hoping that this will be enough to stop anyone considering the arguments. Anyone who has read any of the books published by ID scientists (such as prof Behe's Darwin's Black Box) will know that the arguments are scientific ones, not religious ones as is claimed. I know that ID lost in the Dover trial because the Judge claimed that ID is 'not science' but dont let science be defined by a judge. The biggest mistake we can make is to let something be defined by its critics, if you want to make an informed choice read an ID book and judge for yourself. Science should be a search for truth, wherein, when considering an unobservable event like the beggining of life or the universe, all possible explanations are considered. As the great philosopher Alvin Plantinger said after the Dover ruling:

‘If you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world, or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused – as most of the worlds people believe – you wont be able to reach that conclusion scientifically. Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.

...
Intelligent Design is NOT science as Science is defined:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
...
Intelligent Design = Creationism.
That is a truth... no matter how you try to spin it.
...
The bottom line is... You believe that you and Ed were on the same page... which happened to be YOUR page, not Ed's. You were disappointed as you discovered that Ed is and was never on your Christian path towards enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that.
I think that if you had simply listened to what Ed was saying... he wasn't or isn't telling you to follow him... just to have a listen to what he has to say... this thread would be non-existant.
Some of us don'tfeel the need to follow anyone or anything or any religion. Some of us want to find out on our own because the journey and discovery is interesting to us. Some of us will find our own paths towards truth... be it God or our own personal spirit. we don't need nor want anyone to lead us... because the only thing we truely know is... they don't know where they're going either.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

okay, but what does the third paragraph have to do with the first two? you're jumping to a conclusion there that spiritual experience is by definition somehow "super"natural. why can't it be perfectly natural? i think you're confusing religious dogma (i.e., worship of or belief in a supernatural being, or "god") with spiritual experience. you need to keep it straight in order to have an informed conversation about the topic, whether you "believe" in these experiences or not.

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.