 |
I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?
Intellegent design would be of course a "GOD" or some power that was behind the sitting in place all things for creation. ** over simple I know,
So in this, you could develop a religion from this, but then a religion by its basic is a form of worship or honor of that god or creator.
So it takes man to move form that belief to a form of religion.
It depends on how you view ID.
Some people think the universe and it's laws were set up by a designer and left alone. Humans are just a happy result. :)
Some think the universe was set up by a designer, and that designer intended for us (humans) to be the result, so the designer guided the whole process from the start, or at lease set things up so it would happen this way.
Some people think the designer is the Christian god; this is why ID is often called "disguised creationism". These people think the universe was created by the Christian god and the time that follows falls in line with the wording of the bible.
So to me, the first two versions don't indicate a specific religion; one could believe in those forms of ID and not be religious. Neither of them requires worship, a doctrine or a belief in the afterlife. But the third form (obviously) means one must believe in the Christian god, which means ID is a part of that religion.
Yes, it is religion.
I like that answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I think ID started as the latter version, based on a Christian god... kind of like a cushion to ease the friction between the Evolutionist and the Creationist. But, like all theories, offshoots develop and someone finally said, "well, why does it have to be God that is the designer?"
I think you're right, Iza. The history of ID indicates it was developed to appear less Christian-based and "more scientific" in order to get it into the schools. All this means is that instead of "god" they say "designer", but it's still Genesis in disguise. There's a really funny episode from The Simpsons about it, actually:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...on-207541.html
Kind of long, but worth it if you have a sense of humor. :)
No it is not a religion .It is a counterpoint to the teaching of Darwinism and evolution. It basically finds scientific evidence to refute evolution. It says that creation and life and the universe are too complex to have been a series of random events . I happen to agree .
With the amazing discoveries in molecular biology it is clear that even a single cell is a complex structure ,almost a universe in itself. It is difficult to believe that life then began with light shining on a primordial puddle .
The problem with ID is that it also is not science because there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that since there are flaws in evolutionary theory therefore the only possible explanation is intelligent design.
So how should it be addressed in education ? In my view teachers should acknowledge what ID correctly points out are flaws in the theories being taught . But they should not be teaching ID as an alternative.
Tom, I'm hoping you might expand on this, because I'm a little unclear as to what you mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Are you saying when evolution and the big bang theory are being taught teachers should also teach there are "missing parts", such as the gaps in the fossil record, but not mention ID? Or that teachers should say, "Here are the flaws in this theory, which are answered in ID"?
I just want to understand your opinion.
To plug back into my own question: Intelligent design can mean many different things to different people. It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists. No one else's ox would be gored. And, of course, those who believe in creation are presently seeing their ox being gored. Either way, someone will not like it, so does majority rule or minority rule in this case?
I don't think anyone has an issue with ID being taught as a religious elective. The issue lies in it being taught as science. Evolution does not care about the what created the first bit of life, it defines what happened afterward. Otherwise we would have to teach all other origin ideas such the Great Teapot in the sky, the Flying Spagetti Monster (blessed by his noodle), the Pink Unicorn, etc.
Sorry, Gal, I didn't mean to threadjack with my follow up to tom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
But to get on to your post, the reason ID and Creationism aren't taught in science classes is because they aren't science. When you break either one of them down to the very core, you get "god did it". Maybe lesson plans for each of them could contain scientific elements (look how complex, etc), but the result is "god did it" or, "an intelligent designer did it." That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable, it's not observable. If we allow that to be presented in a science class, we have to add "designer did it" to everything; photosynthesis, human biology, ocean currents, etc. Science classes are supposed to teach things that are scientific and provable; ID and Creationism are not provable (unless the designer appears and says, Hey, it was me, watch this!), they are speculation. Evolution is something we are still gathering evidence on. Some day it might become a scientific law, where we have every last piece of the puzzle, no questions asked. BUT, that still won't disprove the possibility of an intelligent designer - there is no way we can ever know for an absolute fact there was or was not a designer. Since it can't be proven or disproven it can't be science.
Now, if Creationism and ID were to be taught in elective courses, there's no problem. Maybe a religious studies course, or even an alternative science-type course which discusses similar supernatural ideas. I'd even have no problem with that - but as far as either being taught in the core science class which also discusses gravity, photosynthesis, ocean currents, archeology, animal biology, human biology, etc... it just doesn't fit the mold.
I don't object to the teaching of ID in a science class because I'm an atheist, I object to it because it isn't science. But the other part of the problem is that most of the people pushing for ID are pushing for the disguised-creationism ID I mentioned in my first post. It's not a push for "designer did it" it's a push for "Christian god did it". I hope you see the difference, and see how that does have a religious doctrine attached to it.
Correct .Quote:
Are you saying when evolution and the big bang theory are being taught teachers should also teach there are "missing parts", such as the gaps in the fossil record, but not mention ID?
These are theories ;not dogmatic fact and should be taught as such .
ID does not answer the questions in a scientific manner .At best it postulates an untestable hypothesis. So I would not have it taught in a science class.Quote:
Or that teachers should say, "Here are the flaws in this theory, which are answered in ID"?
But it is doctrinaire to conclude ID expalines the origins of life or the universe .It is also doctinaire if Evolution is taught as fact instead of theory.Quote:
It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists.
I am one who thinks that ID or creationism is correct .But it is not science because as a hypothesis it is not testable . The problem has been that the current scientific theories are taught as fact . That is where the correction should be made .
In scientific terminology a theory is actually better than a fact and a law. Facts and laws are dime a dozen a theory is something that gathers all the facts and laws together to offer an explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
For example
F = mg is a law but it is only a part of gravitational theory.
The reason you can never say a scientific theory has been proven is because that is a mathematical term.
I can't prove that chairs exist. I can take photos of chairs, weigh them , characterise them and then talk to carpenters, I can make a chair. I can study the molecular components of the chair. But I cannot prove they exist. It is merely a theory that chairs exist.
Basically half the time in these debates two different languages are being spoken. It is like me trying to argue that there is no line in the bible that says:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:120].
Because I am sitting with a Spanish copy of the bible (not being able to speak or translate Spanish). And then arguing that I cannot find that line in the bible.
I can answer the OPoriginal question along the same line as facts and theories. ID is only part of other religions and is not a religion itself. Like laws are parts of theories but are not theories themselves.
Then evolution and Darwinism are in fact not theories but hypothesis' because the obvious flaws and gaps make them far from "better than fact "
There's an awful lot about evolution that cannot be tested. When you retreat millions of years into the past, there is no way you can test anything. ID does indeed give an answer to many of the gaps in evolution THEORY. And when I was in science class many years ago, evolution was taught as fact, which cannot be backed up. I am offended when my grandchildren are taught ideas as fact without any mention of the countering ideas. The idea that Biblical accounts are fiction has been proven wrong many times, but evolutionists never give up, do you? My original statement that ID has no particular deity, no doctrine, no church/synagogue/mosque, etc. proves it to be non-religious, or if you will not accept that, non-sectarian. Without ID there are simply NO answers to many pertinent questions, and there will likely never be any if we have to rely on the imaginations of men.
Evolution has been tested and continues to be tested. Every time a new genome is sequenced you are testing evolution. The predictions made by evolutionary theory have continuously been proven correct by palaeontology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, I could go on. Doesn't it seem a tad coincidental that all these separate tests of evolution come together with a cohesive argument.
The countering ideas are not taught because they fail to conform to the scientific method. As soon as they do they will be taught. Intelligent design and creationist are philosophies not science.
Thanks for clearing that up, Tom; that's what I figured you meant.
ID gives an answer to the gaps in evolution, but tell me, how would you prove ID is right? How do you prove "designer did it"? You can't. You actually, literally, physically, can't. Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven through fossil records; we just haven't found them all yet. But it can actually be proven. ID and Creationism can't be proven. You can't prove "god" or "designer" in a lab; no matter what science ever comes up with, it will not disprove "god" or "designer" either. I really think that's key; proving evolution, or teaching evolution, doesn't disprove the existence of god. But "god" or "designer" don't belong in a science class. Let the school teach evolution, then when your grandkids get home, tell them the designer of your choice is behind it - it's possible to believe in both. Or, advocate for an alternative course, as I suggested in my other post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
The problem is also that in your post, you mention "biblical accounts" which means (I assume) you think ID should be taught as "Christian god did it", right? That's a big problem. There is less evidence that "Christian god did it" than there is that "designer did it". Your statement also associates a doctrine, a deity, and a church with ID, which proves it (at least your version) to be religious.
I'm asking you honestly, not trying to pick a fight, or be a jerk, but honestly - how would you prove ID? How do you prove there is a designer? How do you test it? Repeat it? If you can't do those things, it's not science. That's not an insult, really, I hope you don't take it that way. ID is not science because it can't be proven or disproven. I also ask you to think of the definition of science - what is science? What makes something scientific? What elements must it have to make it science and not philosophy? Does ID meet those requirements?
The fundamental difference between ID (not creationism disguised ID) and evolution is ID says an intelligent force is guiding everything, or set everything up. Evolution makes no claim on an intelligent force; it doesn't discount it, or require it. You can have it both ways; you can say we crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved into humans as we are today AND STILL believe in a designer.
Bingo... there is no inherent conflict in the two positionsQuote:
Evolution makes no claim on an intelligent force; it doesn't discount it, or require it. You can have it both ways; you can say we crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved into humans as we are today AND STILL believe in a designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
"That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable"
Just on the basis of moleclar biology alone how can you say that observed scientific fact
for example:
- clotting cascade
- dna tanscription to protein translation
- the krebs cycle
proves evolution?
Is their some lab some where that has repeated the "evolution" of these processes?
THINK about dna, all the enzymes, nucleotides, the cell the nucleus - all the factors that have to go into replication and translation. Tie that in with ribosomes, mrna, trna, amino acids [ left handed only ] that act in a coordinated manner to form just one polypeptide that has to undergo post translational editing. These are the facts.
How does random chance, natural selection [ how can you know or reproduce primordial conditions?], and genetic mutations explain this? Remember you have to have the whole process and parts in the proper place in order for gene duplication, crossover, mutations to take place.
Is evolution that is the religion. Faith in the unseen.
This may surprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account. What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact. I doubt that you can say it isn't happening.
There's something else that this touches, although it might be more approriate in the philosophy thread. But since the two meet here, I'll present it.
Science, at best, has only a few answers as to the "how" of human life, and makes no pretense of addressing the "why". Now, don't blow this off! It is important. Human life MUST have meaning or it becomes unbearable for most people. I doubt that there are Atheists who have not chosen something to give meaning to their lives. I submit to you that it is impossible to have civilization without a real meaning for life. Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?
You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.
You're not listening. A scientific theory is better, i.e. more pertaining to the real world, than a single fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
No, it doesn't surprise me at all. If your interpretation of the Bible is the standard for determining what qualifies as "TRUE" science, it's easy to avoid the conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
In scientific practice and terminology, fact and theory are not conflicting opposites, they are complimentary. The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all observable facts, i.e. experimental results, observations and measurements. The accumulation of facts that a theory can't explain and harmonize with previously known facts is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory. So the teaching of science has to convey the proper role and function of both facts (observations) and theories (explanations).Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Great slippery slope you have going there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
When I was a child, I read the bible, got taught things from it and went to Sunday school. I also read encyclopaedias and learnt about dinosaurs (I used to know all the names). And basically by the age of seven I had put two and two together and worked it all out. I remember a Eureka moment in the bath when I realised as much as I wanted to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God it didn't make it real.
And then I realised there was no authority in my life I could do what I wanted! I turned to drugs and alcohol to fill the giant gap in my life and killed my brother in a fit of rage. Oh wait... I didn't. Because no one needs God for morality or direction. It comes for within. I take responsibility for my own actions.
Inthebox the clotting cascade is a fantastic example of how evolution can not only explain a complex process but also be used to test it. You test evolution by making predictions based on it and seeing if they are correct this article summarises this.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html
It also demonstrates how something that appears irreducibly complex can exist in function parts that are later assemble or built upon. I hope you take the time to read it.
Of course the clotting cascade in itself does not prove evolution (also I did mention before proof is a mathematical concept so defunct for this argument anyway) but the numerous other process that contribute with it are what makes it a scientific fact.
I agree with templelane. You seem confused or lost without a god but that's a personal issue with yourself, it's certainly not the case with others. I'm raising two great kids who don't read the bible or even know about a god and they are thriving. Why? Because they have great parents who teach them how to live with others and how to respect themselves. To further add to your failed argument, less intelligent and religious people commit suicide and kill others and classmates as well. Though in Canada we see much less of that than in *religious* US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
You're right, this is getting a bit into philosophy, but since you changed the subject and it's your thread, I think it's OK!Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Science, in general, does not attempt to answer the "why"; that's what philosophy is for. I'm not saying this isn't important, I'm just saying it's not a part of science - lots of things aren't a part of science. As others have said, belief in god is not a requirement for morals. Maybe for some it is (there have been people who have admitted were it not for their belief in god, they'd have no problem murdering their neighbor), but to say those without religion aren't accountable is false. True, atheists don't have someone accounting for their actions after they die, but they must account for their actions every single day of their life. I used this example in another thread, so if you read it, sorry, but I think it fits here too. Say you drive drunk, get into an accident, and kill someone. You feel horrible because you took an innocent life and made a stupid decision. You pray, and seek forgiveness from god; eventually, you feel you have repented and you are "good with god" again. You have someone to shoulder the guilt with you. Now put me in that situation - I have no one to share the guilt with. If I want to feel forgiven, I have to seek forgiveness from the family of the person I killed, likely, not an easy task. So maybe I'm not held accountable for my actions after I die, but I'm held accountable for them ever single day of my life - and the only people who can relieve my guilt are the ones I've wronged. That's where I get my morals from.
So really, I disagree with your situation with the child raised without god. A child raised with god is just as likely to be a bad person as a child raised without. It's the parenting - and from your hypothetical situation, you are implying atheists have no moral code. We do, it just doesn't come from a 2,000 year old book. I also disagree that "life is a drag" and suicide is the logical conclusion to the belief - If anything, atheists probably value life more because this is the only chance we get. Remember, once I die, that's it, game over. No pearly gates, no reunion with my loved ones, nothing. I never want to die - there's nothing in death to look forward to.
Public life should be secular in this country, at least as far as the government is concerned. Religion is for home, private school and church; not public school and government buildings. This is to provide equality to everyone. I disagree that we will fall like Communist countries have if we become more secular; atheism isn't what killed those societies, it was greed and corruption. And please don't try telling me Christian politicians are more moral than non-Christian politicians... History (and recent news) would prove you wrong! :)Quote:
You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.
The foundation of religion doesn't have to be taken from upcoming generations; religion can be taught at home, in private schools, and in churches. None of those places should be stifled when wanting to send their message, unless they are getting involved in politics. I'm not saying "let's send religion underground"; I'm saying keep it where it belongs - out of my government. Build churches, put ads on TV, put up Christmas trees, have a parade, build private schools, go door to door (please pass my house!), do all of that. But don't inject your theology in my government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence"
Great wording but
Not a SCIENTIFIC experiment that can be reproduced or tested. No
Hypothesis - = evolution and that is it
Methods
Data
Discussion
An exposition on the clotting cascade that is already known, but does not offer
1] what specific mutations led to humanity's.
which gene's were duplicated and when
2] what were the exact natural selection factors?
The best Evolutionary science can do is a retrospective study - those are inherently biased.
Now in the medical field the best trials are prospective randomized double blind. An impossibility with evoultion because the pat answers are always the same phrases,. millions of years, gene mutation, gene duplication etc... when you look backwards / retrospectively it is impossible to control for unknows and confounding factors like oxygen levels or sunlight exposure or temperature etc... - no one can go back and say with absolute certainty that billions of years ago - these were the conditions, these were the subjects and this is what happened.
I am not saying that ID should be taught in public schools, but the inherent flaws and limitations of evolution should be taught. That is true science.
1. put some bacteria in a petri dish (you could put in some selection mechanism, like antibiotics or something)Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
2. wait ~ 24 hours.
3. observe how the bacteria have evolved.
Voilà. Evolution. Reproducible, testable.
Okay
1] how did the bacteria get there in the first place?
2] Are not scientists INTELLIGENTLY manipulating reactants and conditions, natural selection if you may, to get results?
3] Bacteria have evolved what? Or is it that they have adapted.
Did that bacteria develop into another bacterial species? Or developed a liver or heart
Or brain? Or should we wait billions of years to see if a fish or dinosaur or
Human "evolves?"
Intelligent design points to an Almighty Creator of this whole universe, who is infalliable and whose design is precise and perfect, He also created us , so we must have a purpose, which is to worship our creator. It would be unfair for GOD TO CRAETE US BUT NOT TELL US WHAT DO WITH THIS LIFE and how to live it TO PLEASE hIM.
He has given us an instruction manual, via His chosen people who are role models for us to emulate and these are the prophets, starting from ADAM, through to jesus and the final prophet Muhammed PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL. The final revelation given to the wHole of mankind is the holy Quran, which remains unchange to this very day after 1400 years because ALMIGHTY GOD tells us in the quran that He has revealed it and He will safeguard it hIMSELF
Almighty God says in the quran in chapter 41, verse 53:
Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” [from the Qur'aan chapter 2, verse 30]
There you have the big bang theory explained by Almnighty God Himself in the quran 1,400 years ago, for which scientists were given the nobel peace prize in the 1970's
1] this is not a fault of evolution, evolution describes how life changes from one form to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
2] Sure, but intelligence is not necessary. Humans throw a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve, or the wind blows a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve. When we study evolution, sure we have to be the intelligence in place, but we simulate things that could happen unintelligently.
3]Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. Adaptation = evolution, except maybe in very intelligent, long lived species which can adapt to a different environment in their own lifetime, why do you think there's a difference?
Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.
Dang, I want to fly but I have not been able to "evolve" my own wings. Ohh some INTELLIGENT humans have DESIGNED the airplane.
So throwing rocks in pool of water make creatures "evolve" - okay - I'm going out now and throwing rocks in a pool of water - hope I don't have to wait too long.
I can remember some years ago a news article where scientists sprayed some chemical soup over warm rocks, and, voilà! After a rather lengthy period there were tiny squirming things in the soup, and the claim was made that they had produced life just like evolution theory said. There was a problem though. The squirmers couldn't reproduce! And it took a lot of intelligence to produce what they got, and God knows how many of our tax dollars! What foolishness!
You wouldn't call that adaptation?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You don't need wings, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Now you're being silly, do you really not understand what I was trying to say in regard to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I find that hard to believe, evolution says nothing about producing life from non life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.
You are correct, I worded this wrong.
It should be :
I thought evolution was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.
I disagree with your second [2] point.
It attributes all of humanity's INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED accomplishments to evolution.
All adaptation is NOT evolution.
For example
1] Phones, today's multifunction cell phone is NOT evolution from the jumbo wall mounted rotary dialed corded version I grew up with.
2] Automotive. Hybrid engine's are an adaptation by humans using their Intelligence to adapt to rising gas prices. Remember diesel engines in the late 70s and early 80s?
3] Christianity - from Roman Catholicism to non-denominational to anti-organized religion.
This adaptation not evolution.
4] Computers - from 256 mhz to terabyte - again INTELLIGENCE - not evolution.
Of course "Intelligent Design" along with "Creationism" is all about religion. For Intelligent Design you MUST have a designer and for Creationism you MUST have a creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
It's a no-brainer. As much as the religionists attempt to tapdance away from the subject when you ask them to put a name on the creator or designer it still boils down to being God. And the proponents of this belief wish to teach it in public schools as fact. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!
Your belief in evolution is just as much a religion as is mine, and I object to MY TAX DOLLARS being spent to teach it exclusively in the classroom. Evolutionists keep saying that their assumptions can be duplicated or shown in the lab, which is nonsense. Some aspects of the assumptions may be shown, but the overall theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and is swallowed without any doubts by gullible people. Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
The "how" is the business of science, which is taught in public schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
The "why" is the business of religion, which is NOT taught in public schools.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 PM. |