Ah, the old "earlier posts" deflection technique. Fine. But no, I don't think the term science worship "ridicules people who hold it in respect." I hold science in respect. As I do art. But those disciplines were created by man. Not the other way around.Originally Posted by chm2023
The science/religion part of the debate is a red herring...
From the religious point of view, you have a bible or Kouran etc - that states your point of view for you. the Religious point of view professes to be right, at the blind exclusion of any other point of view
The science point of view trys to explain the world in a sense of what is currently logical, or can be proved, it is an evolving and learning reality, that explores what reality is, and (eventualy) changes its view, to reflect the new knowledge
The difference between the two is that religion professes to be right whereas science claims to be probrably right, but accepts change, when proved wrong
A red herring? If the science/religion debate isn't the real issue, what is? Furthermore, I don't see any science/athiest types being any more flexible on their viewpoint than the religious. Understandably, they dismiss the Bible as a fairytale. What's not understandable (if they are open to change) is why they dismiss the scientific evidence that supports intelligent design.
Thank you for helping me support my position, Chairtime. You did a simple and effective job.
CHM, "science" is just a way of thinking, and a body of knowledge. Don't make it more than it is. If one of my kids were sick, I would try to help them by taking them to another Dr., like my patient's parents do. That's not hypocritical.
[What is hypocritical is me saying "Wow, I'm so smart. Humans are so smart. We've figured out how this universe works. God is unnecessary, or impotent."]
CHM, are you really willing to spend a little time reading the science? Or, is your mind made up? I've spent a decent amount of time so that what I post is not "bull****" or "junk science". I can point you to respectable sources for what I say. You may disagree, but I think a little of your respect would be earned.
CHM, if I'm "laughably arrogant" you're needlessly sycophantic regarding cosmology or physics. Why should we not discuss cosmological things on this forum, such as the universe collapsing?
Not that anyone would care, but I spent eight years at Ohio State and for about four of those, I hung around physicists (mostly grad students and phD candidates.) I couldn't keep up with the math, but the concepts aren't that mind-boggling. I'm only bringing this up (at the expense of sounding like I think it's noteworthy, which, of course, it isn't in the slightest), but I think I have had the advantage of an inside perspective. If you hang around "the scientists" for long enough, you get to see what it really is and really isn't. I was smart enough to do physics. CHM, you probably are, too. Why do you give these "scientists" and our collected body of knowledge of the physical universe such priority over the meaning of your life? DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT?
Or is it that you actually feel collegial with scientists--you have equal faith in your own intellectual abilities to discern truth?
And, CHM, I intentionally try not to be adroit or clever, because that is self-aggrandizing. I try to be simple and direct, which is more valuable to others than some unnecessarily sophisticated phrase.
I do, indeed have a healthy degree of contempt for universities. You HAVE to know that politics and religion reign supreme in universities, especially at the undergraduate level. Something does not have more validity just having a connection to an academic institution. Heck, being in the field long enough to know more than many of my own professors, I know that there are serious, serious limits to what is taught there. Universities are the shrines of the humanists, the liberal, and the self-styled intellectuals. Those, and PBS are chuch to some people.
One last attempt to open your heart to Jesus Christ, CHM, and I'll never bother you again: What significance does the God in whom you believe have in your life? Please share by posting your answer and you will have the final word. I'm not being contemptuous, just curious, as I've shared my personal feelings.
Last edited by drk; 11-09-2005 at 04:56 PM.
That is a true statement, if I've ever heard one.
My final hope is that both domains adhere perfectly to their respective rules, and that someday, when observable fact meets the correct faith-based religious tenet, we will have no more need for exhaustive conversations that go nowhere.
drk for president
The "scientific evidence" appears to be "we can't explain it, so it must have done by magic", which is neither scientific nor evidence.
So I take it you're an Athiest?
That's the first sensible post you've made. He's certainly a big improvement over the current president.
Your attributes aside, the quotes are all absolutely honest and true.
Bravo! The cosmos thanks you for your support.
:cheers:
rinselberg™ - good posts for your good times
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=16
Last edited by rinselberg; 11-11-2005 at 10:37 PM.
It's nice to be appreciated by the cosmos!:bbg:
Then I guess that makes the score Chairtime 1, Spexvet 0
I read something earlier today that's stunningly applicable to the current discussion:
Following scientific procedures will never lead one to the supernatural. They can't. Using material methods and observing phenomena in the natural world and interpreting them on the basis of logic and prior evidence and explanations is going to keep everything well grounded in the natural world. It's not a matter of having a closed mind—it's a matter of having a suite of useful tools that do their job within a specific domain. I have a box of socket wrenches and screwdrivers and a hammer at home, but I don't haul them out to invent fairy tales.
(Source).
The source, in general, and the post I'm citiing, specifically, are both great resources (as is Talk.Origins generally and this section most specifically). You crazy kids can talk all you want about "worshipping" science, but worship requires faith. The difference with science that theories are testable. Accepting a "designer" leads off the "theory" with a logical fallacy. As it's said in the quote above, you can't use science's tools to prove your beliefs.
Is science infalliable? Of course not. Goofy things like Phlogiston theory litter science (and by extension, human) history. After testing this theory, they realized it was dumb.
I'm not telling any of you anything you don't know. Unless, of course, you've never heard of phlogiston, which I think is a stone cold hoot--negative weight? That's excellent!
Spartus,
I'm not sure how you feel about the ID (Intelligent Design) theorists - whether you consider their efforts to prove that life was purposely created by an intelligent designer, instead of by the more random or undirected processes of Neo-Darwinian evolution, a search for the "supernatural". But I would like to observe that the ID theorists do have a logical avenue of approach: Their objective is to show by various means that life forms as they are observed today and in the past (by fossil evidence) are demonstrably so complex that no known or imaginable process of Neo-Darwinian evolution could explain their development. They have brought forward research papers using the tools of mathematics and statistical analysis to study evolution-related issues like genome structures and the way that genes change or mutate. Among the ID theorists, Michael Behe in particular has had some success in getting the wider scientific community to review some of his research papers.
You can find some of the Intelligent Design theorists and their works online at http://www.discovery.org/
rinselberg has posted previously on the topic of Atheism Vs Religion under the post titles:
Fossil evidence for macroevoluton
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
Deism and the Big Bang
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161
Beware of the Blob
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=117
A Neo-Darwinist speaks
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59
Last edited by rinselberg; 11-09-2005 at 11:10 PM.
The problem with the religious version of intelligent design, is that it either relies on complete faith, and belief in the religious texts, as being factual, including Noah's ark and Genesis, or it relies on a hybrid argument - saying that in essence the bible is true, that god made the world, and all life on it for a purpose, in an intelligent way, and the scriptures, are not factual, but a illustration of what happened, written as an explanation to the populous of the time that they were written
The first scenario is fighting with facts and common sense. Phrases like "god made man in his own image", god made the world in 6 days etc, and Noah’s flood… can not escape the basic tenets of Darwinism, and simple science like fossil records, which do show life existed before the presumed beginning of creation
Take for example the time lines. In the Bible there is a published list of descendants of Adam and Abraham etc. Some say that 888 people are in the lineage in between Adam and Jesus Adam and Jesus, Based on an average lifespan of 70 years; we come up with a lineage of approx 62160 years. God professes to have made the world in 6 days, and rested on the seventh. That in biblical terms puts the origin of life at circa 60000BC. Radiometric dating puts the cretaceous-tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs at 65 million years ago with an accuracy of about +/- 1%. This simple evidence really kicks in to touch the Biblical suggestion that life started about 62000 years ago. Where does that leave those who implicitly trust the contents of the bible… well If you trust it word for word, then you are just plain wrong, and deceiving yourself
Having established that the contents of the bible are not factual, we can then look at the second argument proposed by the religious ID camp, which was that in essence the bible is true, that god made the world, and all life on it for a purpose, in an intelligent way, and the scriptures, are not factual, but a illustration of what happened, written as an explanation to the populous of the time that they were written. The problem with this supposed intelligent design is the level of intelligence varies, and doesn’t tie in with any of the stated texts in the bible. The supposed intelligent design obviously would include evolution, and mutation, which was proved by Darwin, and Gregor Mendel, no intelligent design philosophy could disregard mutation and evolution, because we have shown that species do mutate and evolve. At the moment I am not suggesting the full-blown model for life, is evolution; I am just stating a fact that evolution and mutation exist. Based on this, the intelligent designer would have had to have been incredibly intelligent, to form man in his own image. Clearly apes, and other humanoid life forms on earth are genetic relatives of us, so presumably the intelligent designer designed the evolution for each species in to the design. The human body is so incredibly complex; that an intelligent designer would have had to been an utter genius to start off at the beginning of evolution, with the intention of creating humans. On the other hand, to develop dinosaurs and other species that have suffered extinction would show a comparative lack of intelligence, being a waste of time. Having created the structure to allow humans to form, it would be so comparatively easy to then have ensured that humans were not psychopaths for example. Furthermore, where does the story of Adam and Eve fit into this design? How about Noah’s ark?
So where does this leave us. Clearly the biblical version of the creation of life either relies on blind faith in the preposterous, or a classic fudge. Science however does do a pretty good job of explaining life in terms of the beginning, fossil records, evolution and diversity of life. Yes there are gaps, no one in there right mind would suggest there are not gaps, but the gaps are a bit like looking at a train track, where a bridge got blown down – you can see the track on either side of the gap. In the religious model of ID, the gaps are very numerous and enormous, and there are no indications on either side of the chasm, that the train track was ever there
QDO1 for president.
And if the bible is not factual, but in essence is true, how can they justify holding one passage out as fact/righteous, over other passages. For instance, to acknowledge that Noah's story is just a story, then to point to a passage that amibuously comdemns homosexuals as solid, concrete truth. You can't have it both ways. Is the bible an "illustration" giving you fables about how to live your life, and not factual? Or is it literal, and did dinosaurs live when Adam and Eve were created?
This thread is not about whether the Bible is true or false. Personally, I don't know the Bible as well as the "Athiests" in here. It's really about whether the universe was created deliberately or not. If we continue this thread as "Evolution vs Intelligent Design," it would eliminate a lot of bible talk and we can make analytical and logical progress based only on known facts.
Last edited by Chairtime; 11-10-2005 at 09:49 AM.
That would be a good extrapolation of the point I am making
ZZzzzing! I guess I left myself open for that one. :shiner:
Translation: the Bible is neither analytical nor factual. Thank you, Rimmy.
You seem to quote the Bible more than anyone else. Since you discount it so much, why don't you stop reading it? Why would an athiest want to read the Bible anyway? And why would an athiest go to church? There must be a new religion. The Church of Christian-Athiests.
OK, I couldn't stay away. There seems to be real misconception of what intelligent design proponents are wishing for (maybe it's mine).
ID proponents aren't about religion, strictly. They are about allowing alternative theories to be taught regarding the origin of life and the cosmos. Yes, yes, yes, all religious people support ID, but not all ID supporters are religious. There are many scientists that are not supporting God, they just call it like they see it, right now. Why should a serious, growing, field of thought not be taught in school. I think it boils down to the respectability of the ID argument, which is being given short-shrift.
Certainly, the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the ID debate, proper.
drk, see new thread: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks