Ed and God

timsinclair · August 2008

Cosmo wrote:

Intelligent Design is to Science as Astrology is to Astronomy.

Hey Cosmo, thanks for your question about whether or not there is a link between ID and creationism, but I am still waiting for you to find me the page number of 'pandas' that says the world is 6000 years old. When you find it we can carry on our discussion.

bookem · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

Wecome to the thread bookem.
I suggest you look up the word 'misquote' in your dictionary. I have not misquoted Dawkins, he did say this. Of course Dawkins doen't agree that biological systems WERE designed, thats why his statement is even more revealing, and why it gives the point MORE power. I have not, as you suggest, ignored the word 'appearances', but if you like we can examine it further. After making the statement 'biology is the sudy of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose', Dawkins goes on to explain that:

'All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics'

This is rather like my forensic scientist saying 'ok the deceased person does APPEAR to have an axe embedded in his head but ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY, we KNOW that he died from 'natural' causes because, after all, forensic science is: 'the study of things that happened by natural causes'.

This IS what is going on in this debate, thats why the whole argument is about the definition of science. 90% of the campaign against ID does not engage with the evidence, it just keeps says 'science is the study of things that happened by natural causes' therefore 'ID is not science' therefore ID CANNOT have a case. Lets be brave and follow the evidence where it leads, even if it breaks the rules. Peace.

Perhaps you are the one who should look up the word misquote in the dictionary. I do not deny that Dawkins says what you have copied here. But misquoting someone is not just writing down the wrong thing, it also extends to using the quote in such a way that it is taken out of the context in which it was originally written.

A misquotation is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a person's speech or writing, involving one or more of:

* Omission of important context: The context can be important for determining the overall argument the quoted person wanted to make, for seeing whether the quoted statement was restricted or even negated in this context, or for recognizing hints that it was meant as irony.
* Omission of important parts of the quote.
* Insertion of allegedly implied words or partial sentences: The inserted portions may be specially marked (e.g. by square brackets or cursive font). Using unmarked insertions is commonly deprecated. In order to constitute a misquotation, the implied portions must alter the meaning of the quote in a way that the original author did not obviously intend.
* Incorrect rephrasing: The quote is replaced by one which is only superficially identical in meaning, or one or more of the words in the quotation have been replaced by incorrect ones.
* Misattribution: Attributing someone else's (or no one's in particular) words to a person who did not use them. Misattribution is often found in satire.
* Misspelling, although usually inadvertent, can sometimes be used deliberately, especially with satirical intent, to portray the quoted person as stupid or uneducated.

The following causes are mostly responsible for misquotations:

* Imperfect reproduction, e.g. from memory, in communication or by transcription. Gossip, which involves many consecutive memorizations and mouth-to-mouth communications, can quickly 'mutate' a quote beyond recognition. In those cases, only the 'kernel' of the quote is held while the rest is omitted or simplified.
* Misunderstanding, if the person using the quote misjudges the importance of context, partial sentences, or inserts an invalid implication.
* Malice or deliberate deceit (Quote mining).
* Humor or satire.

timsinclair · August 2008

bookem wrote:

misquoting someone is not just writing down the wrong thing, it also extends to using the quote in such a way that it is taken out of the context in which it was originally written.

[Alleged type of misquotation used by Tim according to Bookem ] Misunderstanding, if the person using the quote misjudges the importance of context, partial sentences, or inserts an invalid implication.

Ok Bookem. If this is what you are accusing me of, please explain how I have done this. I have used the quotation:

‘biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’.

to show that Dawkins regards all biological systems as having the APPEARANCE of design.

I then used the second quotation:

'All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics'

to show that Dawkins rejects the notion that biological systems WERE designed.

If this understanding is wrong, please explain why, and give us your understanding of the two quotations I have used.

catefrances · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

Wecome to the thread bookem.
I suggest you look up the word 'misquote' in your dictionary. I have not misquoted Dawkins, he did say this. Of course Dawkins doen't agree that biological systems WERE designed, thats why his statement is even more revealing, and why it gives the point MORE power. I have not, as you suggest, ignored the word 'appearances', but if you like we can examine it further. After making the statement 'biology is the sudy of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose', Dawkins goes on to explain that:

'All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics'

This is rather like my forensic scientist saying 'ok the deceased person does APPEAR to have an axe embedded in his head but ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY, we KNOW that he died from 'natural' causes because, after all, forensic science is: 'the study of things that happened by natural causes'.

This IS what is going on in this debate, thats why the whole argument is about the definition of science. 90% of the campaign against ID does not engage with the evidence, it just keeps says 'science is the study of things that happened by natural causes' therefore 'ID is not science' therefore ID CANNOT have a case. Lets be brave and follow the evidence where it leads, even if it breaks the rules. Peace.

if science is how humans make sense of the physical world around them. if we need to be able to observe something in order for it to be understood. and those observations need to be verifable, then what understanding do we gain from ID? and how do we verify what we have observed, if indeed weve observed anything through ID?

this is not about defining science. we know what science is. i want you to define intelligent design.

timsinclair · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

if science is how humans make sense of the physical world around them. if we need to be able to observe something in order for it to be understood. and those observations need to be verifable, then what understanding do we gain from ID? and how do we verify what we have observed, if indeed weve observed anything through ID?

this is not about defining science. we know what science is. i want you to define intelligent design.

Hi Cate.
Ok. Intelligent design is a philosphical and scientific movement that argues that many discoveries of modern science should compell us to reconsider intelligent causation for the existence of biological life.

The movement began because Philip E. Johnson wrote a book called 'Darwin on trial', which assesed the empirical evidence for Darwinism and concluded that:

‘As a general theory of biological creation, Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on an a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature.’

This was a bit of a revelation to quite a few scientists and some began to feel as if, as Proffessor Micheal Behe said, they had been 'led down the garden path'. Subsequently, scientists like Behe began, for the first time to question the validity of darwinian theory and put it to the test. As a result, Behe and many others have become convinced that darwinism is false for purely scientific reasons, and 10 years ago Behe published his book 'darwins black box' to lay out the scientific reasons why he has come to reject Darwinism.

So, in a nutshell Cate, ID is a branch of science and philosophy that, when considering the origins of biological life, suspends the philosophy of 'methodological naturalism' and points to evidence in biological systems that counts as evidence both AGAINST Darwinism, and FOR intelligent Design.

if anyone would like to see a clip of Behe talking about some of the evidence, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGC-1g4S3Y

catefrances · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

Hi Cate.
Ok. Intelligent design is a philosphical and scientific movement that argues that many discoveries of modern science should compell us to reconsider intelligent causation for the existence of biological life.

The movement began because Philip E. Johnson wrote a book called 'Darwin on trial', which assesed the empirical evidence for Darwinism and concluded that:

‘As a general theory of biological creation, Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on an a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature.’

This was a bit of a revelation to quite a few scientists and some began to feel as if, as Proffessor Micheal Behe said, they had been 'led down the garden path'. Subsequently, scientists like Behe began, for the first time to question the validity of darwinian theory and put it to the test. As a result, Behe and many others have become convinced that darwinism is false for purely scientific reasons, and 10 years ago Behe published his book 'darwins black box' to lay out the scientific reasons why he has come to reject Darwinism.

So, in a nutshell Cate, ID is a branch of science and philosophy that, when considering the origins of biological life, suspends the philosophy of 'methodological naturalism' and points to evidence in biological systems that counts as evidence both AGAINST Darwinism, and FOR intelligent Design.

if anyone would like to see a clip of Behe talking about some of the evidence, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGC-1g4S3Y

so tim, are you a theist or a deist? if you are speaking of God i think you need to be definitive.
how is ID a branch of science?
please use your own words. i want to know what you think and what you believe, not what some scholar or other type person tells you to believe. afterall would you not agree that ones relationship with their God is a personal one?

timsinclair · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

so tim, are you a theist or a deist? if you are speaking of God i think you need to be definitive.
how is ID a branch of science?
please use your own words. i want to know what you think and what you believe, not what some scholar or other type person tells you to believe. afterall would you not agree that ones relationship with their God is a personal one?

i think I have explained why ID is science. It is purely empirical, thats why it is science, it just has no commitment to philosophical naturalism.

Regarding my own personal beliefs, I am a philosophical theist. I believe that there is one God, his name is YHWH. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that the Jewish scriptures (both the Tanakh, and the New Testament) are the word of God and historically accurate. I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is both Israel's promised messiah and the saviour of both Jews and gentiles who accept his sacrifice on their behalf. I believe that Yeshua will return in person and establish a reign of peace on the Earth.

I agree that my relaionship with God is 'personal', but I also believe that what I have stated above is the ultimate truth that one day everyone will be faced with, even if it is too late. I believe that people are important enough to spend time communicating this to them, I believe you are important enough. Peace.

catefrances · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

i think I have explained why ID is science. It is purely empirical, thats why it is science, it just has no commitment to philosophical naturalism.

Regarding my own personal beliefs, I am a philosophical theist. I believe that there is one God, his name is YHWH. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that the Jewish scriptures (both the Tanakh, and the New Testament) are the word of God and historically accurate. I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is both Israel's promised messiah and the saviour of both Jews and gentiles who accept his sacrifice on their behalf. I believe that Yeshua will return in person and establish a reign of peace on the Earth.

I agree that my relaionship with God is 'personal', but I also believe that what I have stated above is the ultimate truth that one day everyone will be faced with, even if it is too late. I believe that people are important enough to spend time communicating this to them, I believe you are important enough. Peace.

how is ID empirical?

jesus is the saviour of the jews? how can this be?

dont know about the important part, but youd be wasting your time, and mine, if you tried to 'save' me.

writersu · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

how is ID empirical?

jesus is the saviour of the jews? how can this be?

dont know about the important part, but youd be wasting your time, and mine, if you tried to 'save' me.

I know that most people know this, so forgive me for saying it in this way, (as if I am telling you something you don't already know, but I am quite sure you do), that the thing is that for those of us who choose to believe in Him, again, CHOOSE to believe in Him, He is the savior for all who desire Him. He came for the Jews but ended up saving the gentiles. This is what we are taught anyway.
I think He came and taught us but if we fuck up we are on our own. Sometimes we make our own luck;fortune;blessings, etc. sometimes, not always.

timsinclair · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

how is ID empirical?

Hi Cate. ID is entirely empirical in its methodology. It observes biological systems, performs experiments and draws inferences and conclusions. If you read ID literature for yourself you will see that ALL ID arguments and evidences are empirical, even if the conclusions have profound metaphysical implications.

jesus is the saviour of the jews? how can this be?

Yeshua (Jesus) was a Torah observant Jew, he said. 'I have come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel' Paul, and all the 1st century disciples were Torah observant Jews. Today there are about 200.000 Jews who accept His messiahship. they are not 'Christians', they are 'Messianic Jews' most observe Torah, all consider themselves Jews and Yeshua King of the Jews. If you would like to know more about Messianic Judaism there are plenty of good websites out there but here is a good introduction:

http://www.messianic.com/articles/basics.htm

dont know about the important part, but youd be wasting your time, and mine, if you tried to 'save' me.

I cant 'save' anyone but if God is calling you, he will pursue you and never give up. Peace.

writersu · August 2008

I cant 'save' anyone but if God is calling you, he will pursue you and never give up. Peace.[/quote]

so cool you put it like that because you are right no one gets saved, it is an internal calling that we decide to pick up on or not.

catefrances · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

I cant 'save' anyone but if God is calling you, he will pursue you and never give up. Peace.

well i guess hes given up on me then cause i dont hear a peep from him.

writersu wrote:

so cool you put it like that because you are right no one gets saved, it is an internal calling that we decide to pick up on or not.

and if there is no calling, as you both put it, to be heard?

NoOne'sRival · August 2008

I thought ed was referring to himself, from the very beginning of the song to the very end...it's all ed..no? being stripped and stabbed...by the industry, but he still stands..and he still gives his love, just gives it away...every time he sings!!

writersu · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

well i guess hes given up on me then cause i dont hear a peep from him.

and if there is no calling, as you both put it, to be heard?

Not at all, Cate, truly maybe you don't hear it because you are doing alright on your own and if He is to be present (as well as welcomed by you) in your life, you are not in need at this time.

I have heard Him loudest and best when I am prostrate, crying in front of my cross in my bedroom. That is when I listen.
I don't think I am chosen or picked or special, hell no, but that is the cool thing if I can hear Him so can all who listen.

timsinclair · August 2008

lisafitz wrote:

I thought ed was referring to himself, from the very beginning of the song to the very end...it's all ed..no? being stripped and stabbed...by the industry, but he still stands..and he still gives his love, just gives it away...every time he sings!!

Hi. Lisa.
Welcome to the thread.
I guess GTF could be understood that way but I seriously hope thats not the case. If it is, then I think Ed would be setting hmself as up as some kind of Messiah figure, making his statement 'there are no fucking messiahs in rock' sound a bit hypocritical. If Ed thinks he's the one who was stripped, stabbed, then 'rose up' and 'floated back down' to share the key to locks on everyones chains, and to give away his love, he is one seriously deluded rock star. I think he's talking about someone else, and only one person seems to fit the bill. Peace.

timsinclair · August 2008

writersu wrote:

Not at all, Cate, truly maybe you don't hear it because you are doing alright on your own and if He is to be present (as well as welcomed by you) in your life, you are not in need at this time.

I have heard Him loudest and best when I am prostrate, crying in front of my cross in my bedroom. That is when I listen.
I don't think I am chosen or picked or special, hell no, but that is the cool thing if I can hear Him so can all who listen.

Hi writersu

Good to have you around.

'we never listen, voice inside, so drowned out, drowned you are, you are you are a furry thing, and everything is you, you me, me you, its all related.'

I originally said God 'gently' pursues us, but i edited it out because sometimes, If we keep resisting, he has to break us first, then put us back together.

'You can run from love, but if its really love it will find you, and catch you by the ear'

U2.

timsinclair · August 2008

Another song that I think is relevant to this thread is insignificance. I think those who are familiar with the apocalyptic literature from the Bible will agree that this song sounds very much like a plea to God for mercy in the coming apocalypse. I love the image of someone in a bar selecting a 'protest' song on the dukebox and dancing 'with irreverance' as the great disaster strikes. Its so reminiscent of what Jesus said 'people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man'. the first chorus is interesting in saying 'the full moon is dead skin' and reminds me of wht revelation says will happen at the apocalypse: I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. 'The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red'. the song seems to call out to God for forgiveness, rather like Jesus did on the cross (forgive them father they know not what they do) saying 'please fogive our hometown, in our insignificance'. Any comments?

pirlo21 · August 2008

If there is a God, he's pretty arrogant.
He's kind of saying 'love me or go to hell' !!

I can live a clean life, doing nothing but good and trying to make a difference. But if I don't believe in God I'm dammed?!

Does that mean if there's someone else out ther who's not been so good. Maybe murdered or raped, but if they believe in and love God and ask for forgiveness, they'll be saved?!!

Sounds daft.

As for Eddie's lyrics, only one guy truely knows the meaning behind them.

Collin · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

Most design theorists find the theory that the designer is ‘supernatural’ more compelling, however a supernatural designer IS beyond the limits of scientific enquiry. I realize that you see this as a problem, and a ‘science stopper’, however if science is to be a search for truth, and if this is where the evidence leads as, so what!!

Well, we cant. That might be frustrating but it’s a fact and ID is not claiming otherwise. However, as I have said, although we cannot observe him/her/it directly, a supernatural designer IS inferred by the design that we see when we study nature. Non-observable causes CAN be inferred by studying their effects alone, the example of gravity, as I said, demonstrates this. We cannot observe gravity but its existence is inferred by its effects on matter, which we can observe. Your example from medical science is a case in point, if an incurable disease was cured by prayer, and this was medically documented, medical science WOULD infer a supernatural intervention. However this kind of thing is NOT what ID is concerned with. ID is concerned with the origin of complex biological systems.

So what? You can't go further. You can't go to where the evidence leads if it leads to the supernatural.

Even if you allow god into science. It doesn't change the scientific facts. You said you ID was entirely empirical in its methodology. It was the conclusions that had profound metaphysical implications.

Well, the theory of evolution is entirely empirical in its methodology. There is substantial evidence for evolution. Allow god into science, you'll have plenty of scientists who will simply say evolution is god's tool. The evidence for evolution is there, the metaphysical implications as well.

The best analogy for ‘origins science’ is forensics. This is because forensic science, like origins science, is unable to observe the event that it is concerned with, rather it has to make inferences about it from what the event has left behind for us to observe. Lets say, someone has died, the forensic experts come and investigate the evidence that the death has left behind in order the determine whether the person died by ‘natural’ causes, or whether an ‘intelligent’ agent was involved, i.e the person was murdered. Now, in the absence of a murderer to ‘study’, the forensic scientist will probably consider both ‘models’ (murder or natural death) and see which one best explains the evidence. As has been shown on many occasions, the actual evidence can often be interpreted quite convincingly either way, and forensic scientists can often be wrong. Why? Because with forensics, as with origins science, we CANNOT observe the event, therefore there is much room for speculation and all evidence has to be interpreted by reference to a model, or theory, about what actually happened. However, it is also true that 'good' forensic science will be able to establish the existence of a murderer, even if they are unable to observe him/her and cannot discover their identity. Now, regarding ‘origins science’, you have said that have not made a strong case for allowing supernatural causes a place at the table in scientific investigation. I will now make that case, but first consider that if a forensic scientist worked within a rule that stated: ‘all deaths are by natural causes’, nobody would ever get arrested for murder, even if the dead man had an axe hanging out of his head.

It's quite sad if that's the best analogy. And it is based entirely on a play of words.

A natural death is a death in accordance with nature, normal or to be expected. A murder is not natural or in accordance with nature, it is not normal and it is not expected. So, you reason, a murder or muderer is supernatural. This is not the case, however. Murder is an unnatural death, caused by man. And man happens to be natural, not supernatural.

Why investigate a murder/death anyway? It's god divine plan, isn't it?

From Philosophy we can discern that:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.

OK, show me proof the universe has a beginning. You can't because we don't know. You start your reasoning with something we cannot verify and which you don't know is true.

Collin · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

Wecome to the thread bookem.
I suggest you look up the word 'misquote' in your dictionary. I have not misquoted Dawkins, he did say this. Of course Dawkins doen't agree that biological systems WERE designed, thats why his statement is even more revealing, and why it gives the point MORE power. I have not, as you suggest, ignored the word 'appearances', but if you like we can examine it further. After making the statement 'biology is the sudy of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose', Dawkins goes on to explain that:

'All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics'

This is rather like my forensic scientist saying 'ok the deceased person does APPEAR to have an axe embedded in his head but ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY, we KNOW that he died from 'natural' causes because, after all, forensic science is: 'the study of things that happened by natural causes'.

This IS what is going on in this debate, thats why the whole argument is about the definition of science. 90% of the campaign against ID does not engage with the evidence, it just keeps says 'science is the study of things that happened by natural causes' therefore 'ID is not science' therefore ID CANNOT have a case. Lets be brave and follow the evidence where it leads, even if it breaks the rules. Peace.

Science has been defined. You just don't agree with the definition and you want to re-define it. Oddly enough, you repeatedly said the definitions should not be made by the opponents.

The evidence of ID has been addressed. You refuse to accept or believe it. There's really nothing more they can do.

It's quite funny how you accuse the scientific community of not engaging with the evidence, yet fail to mention that ID barely has any evidence and mainly tries to gain power and influence through politics and propaganda videos. ID is 90% politics and popularizing.

Let's be brave and indeed follow the evidence where it leads: evolution. Oh wait, this isn't about actually looking at the evidence or being brave for that matter, it's about wanting this view, regardless of proof or theory, to be accepted.

Ed and God

Comments

Categories