Thread: Teaching Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by Hopelite

I feel I kinda have to butt in here.

The purpose of science is to advance knowledge and outside of maybe a handful of truly weird people, I have a hard time buying that there is a "movement afoot" to disprove religion using science. That isnt how science works; you cant prove a negative.

Absolutely. Nonetheless, Richard Dawkins is a highly regarded professor at Oxford and not some loon who runs a two-bit web page on the internet. In fact, he is Oxford’s ‘Professor for Public Understanding of Science’. And what the good professor wants the public to know is that their religion is dead---according to science, and that they should put their faith in natural selection instead.

And in The God Delusion Dawkins is pretty adamant about it. So, yes, there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove religion. Which makes the ‘ID back-lash’ in public schools at least somewhat predictable.

Originally Posted by Hopelite

Except that's a bass-ackwards analogy.

It should be noted that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life, it only explains (and only ever did explain) the diversity of life, not it's origin.

I’m confident Hoyle was aware of the distinction. Sir Fred Hoyle was a well known British mathematician and astronomer. When the mathematicians start to claim that your hypothesis is questionable from the standpoint of probability, attention should be paid. In fact, it should probably be scrapped.

Not so, with abiogenesis. If it goes down, it takes the materialist worldview with it. It’s that simple, really.

Originally Posted by Hopelite

The problem with this idea is if you're claiming an intelligent designer, they must not be THAT intelligent because there are countless examples of TERRIBLE design.

What sick, twisted mind thought up Ebola Zaire? Why do humans have so many vestigial traits, some of which cause us serious problems today? What the HELL is up with cecotrophes?

When SETI points their radio telescope up at the sky, they are looking for evidence of design amongst the random noise. In a very basic sense, their science is an exercise in design detection. Are they required to make anything but some very general statements about the putative aliens based on what they detect?

Of course not. How could anyone expect them to? It’s not a reasonable expectation; furthermore, the nature of the putative alien has absolutely nothing to do with their science.

I don’t understand the apparent double-standard that is applied to detecting design in biology.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Absolutely. Nonetheless, Richard Dawkins is a highly regarded professor at Oxford and not some loon who runs a two-bit web page on the internet. In fact, he is Oxford’s ‘Professor for Public Understanding of Science’. And what the good professor wants the public to know is that their religion is dead---according to science, and that they should put their faith in natural selection instead.

Richard Dawkins is getting carried away by his non-scientific agenda as atheist. Which is a pity as I think that he is a capable scientist.

As far as I know Dawkins opinions however, you grossly misrepresent them. While he is an outspoken atheist he certainly does not tell anyone to put his "faith" in natural selection. He says it exists and works, but not necessarily in our favour and not necessarily always.

And in The God Delusion Dawkins is pretty adamant about it. So, yes, there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove religion. Which makes the ‘ID back-lash’ in public schools at least somewhat predictable.

"The God Delusion" is a lot but not a scientific publication. Nor am I aware of that book being used in any school.

I’m confident Hoyle was aware of the distinction. Sir Fred Hoyle was a well known British mathematician and astronomer. When the mathematicians start to claim that your hypothesis is questionable from the standpoint of probability, attention should be paid. In fact, it should probably be scrapped.

Not so, with abiogenesis. If it goes down, it takes the materialist worldview with it. It’s that simple, really.

Mathematicians aren't wizards, they sometimes lack important understanding of biology or other things. A very good example for this is the Discovery Institute researcher William A. Dembski.

Btw, lets do some little mind game. A tornado goes through the trash site. Let's suppose this could create a robot with self consciousness. Furthermore lets suppose the tornado has an infinite number of attempts. What is the probability of such a robot being created by the tornado? It is 1, unless the propability for success at one attempt is equal to 0. (1*10^-)

And let's suppose that robot will start thinking what created him? Will he consider chance to be a likely option?

PS: Of course this has nothing to do with what the theory of evolution is about. But its the coming into being of our universe and of life is a fascinating subject nonetheless, even though a challenging one for science.

All a very good discussion, but why have it? The answer, as I understand it, is quite simple.

If scientists become able to create life from mass and energy, and do it repeatedly and clearly, those who claim the Creationism is the true answer will still believe Creationism is the true answer.

The issue is not an issue of facts, but an issue of preferring to believe a certain and specific dogma, even in the face of other facts

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

All a very good discussion, but why have it? The answer, as I understand it, is quite simple.

If scientists become able to create life from mass and energy, and do it repeatedly and clearly, those who claim the Creationism is the true answer will still believe Creationism is the true answer.

The issue is not an issue of facts, but an issue of preferring to believe a certain and specific dogma, even in the face of other facts

Pretty funny Dick. You start with a conditional statement pretending to be a fact and conclude with a criticism of preferences pretending to be a fact...

Originally Posted by Good1

Pretty funny Dick. You start with a conditional statement pretending to be a fact and conclude with a criticism of preferences pretending to be a fact...

I wonder what you mean. I wonder if you know what you mean.

How about a translation for this simple lad?

Originally Posted by Good1

Assembling the canon of Scripture was not the conspiracy you seem to believe it was. Those books included in the New Testament canon DID have some significant similarities, one of which was their wide acceptance amongst the Christian churches. Although harmony was one of the criteria, books weren't "thrown out" because they conflicted with someone's preconceived agenda.

I never said it was a conspiracy. I said the church wanted a cohesive view of Christianity and they wanted to go with what was popular at the time.

That meant "not including" (if that'll make you happier) books that really should have been in there considering what they were about; the Gospels of Judas and Mary, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter which basically says "belief alone wont get you into heaven", and the Gospel of Phillip and Apocryphon of James which contain actual conversations with Jesus. So what the fuck are people kicking these books out for?

Originally Posted by darth omar

Absolutely. Nonetheless, Richard Dawkins is a highly regarded professor at Oxford and not some loon who runs a two-bit web page on the internet. In fact, he is Oxford’s ‘Professor for Public Understanding of Science’. And what the good professor wants the public to know is that their religion is dead---according to science, and that they should put their faith in natural selection instead.

Yes, but he doesn't use science to actively disprove god. He is very critical of religion and he uses already established science to challenge god but that isnt the same as actively researching ways to disprove or attack religion.

And in The God Delusion Dawkins is pretty adamant about it. So, yes, there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove religion. Which makes the ‘ID back-lash’ in public schools at least somewhat predictable.

Admittedly I've never read the book (lack of interest) so I cant comment on it.

I’m confident Hoyle was aware of the distinction. Sir Fred Hoyle was a well known British mathematician and astronomer. When the mathematicians start to claim that your hypothesis is questionable from the standpoint of probability, attention should be paid. In fact, it should probably be scrapped.

We also have to consider that our knowledge now is far more advanced than when Hoyle was considering the problem and that Hoyle is a mathematician, not a biologist. Evolutionary biology is a complex subject, I dont understand a lot of it and I've been studying it (unofficially) for several years. Hoyle, to my knowlege, has no background in biology and if he's saying evolution is impossible because "its too random", then he has misunderstood the theory of evolution; it doesnt work on random chance.

Not so, with abiogenesis. If it goes down, it takes the materialist worldview with it. It’s that simple, really.

Why?

When SETI points their radio telescope up at the sky, they are looking for evidence of design amongst the random noise. In a very basic sense, their science is an exercise in design detection. Are they required to make anything but some very general statements about the putative aliens based on what they detect?

Of course not. How could anyone expect them to? It’s not a reasonable expectation; furthermore, the nature of the putative alien has absolutely nothing to do with their science.

I don’t understand the apparent double-standard that is applied to detecting design in biology.

Because SETI is looking for something we know is created by an intelligent being because we've done it. Looking for something we know for a fact can be created by intelligent life is different than looking for patterns in biological life that indicate creation.

We have no examples of creationism on other worlds and we have nothing overwhelming life was "created" on this world either. We also have a model that works on natural and well-understood principles to explain how life developed that works fairly well and on which a lot of our biological and medical science is based.

That's one thing that Creationists miss constantly; we have so much of our currently accepted science that simply wouldn't work unless evolution was true.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Richard Dawkins is getting carried away by his non-scientific agenda as atheist. Which is a pity as I think that he is a capable scientist.

As far as I know Dawkins opinions however, you grossly misrepresent them. While he is an outspoken atheist he certainly does not tell anyone to put his "faith" in natural selection. He says it exists and works, but not necessarily in our favour and not necessarily always.

I think Dawkins grossly overstates the power of natural selection. Even if the gazelle is lucky enough to be born with an advantageous mutation, it could still linger too long at the water hole and get eaten by the crocodile. In fact, that kind of thing very likely happens more often than not.

But I digress. In The God Delusion Dawkins goes on about the 'conciousness raising' that occurs when natural selection is contemplated. Which actually struck me as being at once humorus and ironic, given that he was out to dismantle religion in general and Christianity in particular.

He did neither.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

"The God Delusion" is a lot but not a scientific publication. Nor am I aware of that book being used in any school.

True enough. However, Dawkins held a position in which he was basically the spokesman for evolution; he was the kind of person who the press would turn to to get an opinion regarding the latest find or what have you. That Dawkins is so anti-religion doesn't tend to trouble those in academia like it might people who send their kids to public schools.

From their perspective, I totally get why they might want to have their kids see an alternative to Dawkins' religion[?].

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Mathematicians aren't wizards, they sometimes lack important understanding of biology or other things. A very good example for this is the Discovery Institute researcher William A. Dembski.

Neither are biologists wizards. Unlikely events require an explanation beyond appealing to more and more time so that the unlikely becomes likely. Not only is that arguably unscientific [the hypothesis becomes effectively irrefutable] but it makes the skepticism easy since most unbiased observers are going to say the game is rigged.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Btw, lets do some little mind game. A tornado goes through the trash site. Let's suppose this could create a robot with self consciousness. Furthermore lets suppose the tornado has an infinite number of attempts. What is the probability of such a robot being created by the tornado? It is 1, unless the propability for success at one attempt is equal to 0. (1*10^-)

There is a logical problem with infinite chances: They bring with them an embarrassment of riches. Given infinite time, the same tornado will create Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

And let's suppose that robot will start thinking what created him? Will he consider chance to be a likely option?

PS: Of course this has nothing to do with what the theory of evolution is about. But its the coming into being of our universe and of life is a fascinating subject nonetheless, even though a challenging one for science.

Fascinating indeed. I am persuaded the answer lies beyond science.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Fascinating indeed. I am persuaded the answer lies beyond science.

This is the error with religion versus science. I don't think anything is beyond science but your assumption is that certain things are already there. When you make that assumption you automatically stop asking certain questions and leave the answer to something beyond which always means god.The difference between us is that, if presented with enough evidence, I would gladly accept the existence of god, but you will never see enough evidence to do the opposite.

Every day science narrows the gap where god can be found by not finding it. It is how I accepted the non-existence of god. I spent a lot of time trying to find a gap, but eventually there weren't enough gaps left.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

I never said it was a conspiracy. I said the church wanted a cohesive view of Christianity and they wanted to go with what was popular at the time.

So they didn't conspire ... but they did work together to build what only they wanted?

Uh ... O.K.! I'm aware you didn't use the word "conspiracy," though. That's why I used words like you "seem to believe it was." Your simplistic presentation of how the canon of Scripture was assembled left out a lot of facts about the process they used, over a long time period, and left me thinking you actually believed it was that smiplistic (aka, a "conspiracy" by a small group of people).

Originally Posted by Hoplite

That meant "not including" (if that'll make you happier) books that really should have been in there considering what they were about; the Gospels of Judas and Mary, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter which basically says "belief alone wont get you into heaven", and the Gospel of Phillip and Apocryphon of James which contain actual conversations with Jesus. So what the fuck are people kicking these books out for?

They were left out for various reasons: Gnosticism, specifically, was a big problem in the early church. Gnostics believed there were only an "inspired" few who could rightly interpret God's nature to the rest of us and that God was disconnected from us and unknowable... such beliefs formed quite a stark contrast to what Jesus and, then, the Apostles told the church about God and His desire for a close relationship with each of us individually.

Something like The Gospel of Judas Iscariot might have been excluded from the Canon of Scripture for several reasons: First is that the accounts of Judas' betrayal of Christ differ from the other apostles' accounts, and the second is likely that the Gospel of Judas Iscariot is widely believed to have been written by a para-church sect in the 2nd century and not by Judas, himself (one of the qualifiers for a New Testament book's inclusion was that it was written by an apostle).

So, again, no one sat down and worked their way through some list with "This one goes ... this one stays ... this one and this one go ... these stay..." It was a process that was defined by the early church and took a long time to accomplish.

Are you suggesting that Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew?

Originally Posted by JustDee

This is the error with religion versus science. I don't think anything is beyond science but your assumption is that certain things are already there. When you make that assumption you automatically stop asking certain questions and leave the answer to something beyond which always means god.The difference between us is that, if presented with enough evidence, I would gladly accept the existence of god, but you will never see enough evidence to do the opposite.

Your criticism, right back at'cha, Dee.

It has long been my observation and experience that "you" (editorial "you") adopted evolution and, then, quit asking questions as to what ELSE might be true... or what might be true INSTEAD. To cite your own words back to you, when you make that assumption (that evolution is the answer), you automatically stop asking certain questions and leave the answer to something which always means evolution.

The difference between your perception of "me" and the real "me" is that I have never stopped asking questions. In fact, to my understanding, God encourages me to seek. You will never, ever see that evidence that you would "gladly accept" as evidence of the existence of God because you've already got it built up in your head that such evidence will have to be something within [ these ] parameters and nothing else will fit.

For example, if you were in the midst of a severe drought and God made it rain over your garden... all you would accept is that it rained on your garden: No way you will ever acknowledge the possibility that a God made it rain... However, if God did not make it rain on your garden and the severe drought continued, you would be amongst the first to criticize Christians with "...so where's your god, now?"

It doesn't matter what evidence exists as to the presence and love of God: It will not fit your preconception of what such evidence must be ... so you will not see it. I'll even go so far as to stipulate you cannot see it without God's help ... but that's probably a bit much for you to absorb at this point.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Are you suggesting that Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew?

Not suggesting anything, Dick.

I appreciate the question, though.

Who do you think wrote the books of the Bible?

Originally Posted by Hoplite

I never said it was a conspiracy. I said the church wanted a cohesive view of Christianity and they wanted to go with what was popular at the time.

That meant "not including" (if that'll make you happier) books that really should have been in there considering what they were about; the Gospels of Judas and Mary, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter which basically says "belief alone wont get you into heaven", and the Gospel of Phillip and Apocryphon of James which contain actual conversations with Jesus. So what the fuck are people kicking these books out for?

Perhaps part of the reason is because it was before the printing press, before widespread literacy, before the typewriter, before cheap paper and ink and printers that spit out a kazilloin pages a minute, before PDF files, etc, etc...

Books were very expensive back in that day.