The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Intelligent design - damaging good science and good theology > Comments

Intelligent design - damaging good science and good theology : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 9/9/2005

Peter Sellick argues it is not a good idea to teach intelligent design in our children's biology classes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All
Are we there yet?

If the “multiple universe” theory is true, then we may never know who (or what) created our particular or current universe, as our universe may have been created from an infinite series of universes, that have been created over an infinity of time.

But our knowledge of biology must tell us that life wants to extend and fill any available niche, given the time and opportunity, (whether on this planet or some other). Maybe that is God.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 9 September 2005 9:36:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Peter as my wife said the other day she wants a God of the whole not of the gaps.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 9 September 2005 10:16:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I understand it, the main shaker and mover for Intelligent design, The Discovery Institute in Seattle has also said that it don't believe intelligent design was ready to be taught in school science classes.

Having said that, the Theory of Evolution is labouring under various difficulties and it does no harm and indeed is an honest thing to make children aware of the theory's difficulties, a fair proportion of which are related to the finite age of the universe, the sheer complexity of even the most simple life forms and gaps in the fossil record. From what I read and hear the theory of evolution makes not a scrap of difference one way or the other in work and new discoveries in the biological sciences.

In the meantime Christians will no doubt continue with confidence to teach in their Churches and Schools, their own versions of the origins of life whether young earth creationism, old earth creationism or some theistic version of evolution.
Posted by David Palmer, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:48:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a shame some people choose to not accept evolution because it contradicts their religion. We're all here to learn, and what greater pursuit is there than the pursuit of knowledge? Yet so many go to great lengths to NOT know about the world and how it works.

Why do they do this? Well, I would speculate fear would be a pretty large factor. If evolution is correct, and our existence is nothing but an accident, just a product of the right conditions...then what is the point of it all? I can see why someone would rather remain ignorant.

For me personally, I quite like the idea that we're an accident. It makes me feel like we're even MORE special (so incredibly lucky to be alive, when all probability was working against us).

Science shouldn't be feared. In fact, I view it as my path to personal elightenment. For instance, at a quantum level, the particles that make up who we are- are constantly changing places. At any given time you will have many particles in you that were once in Elvis and Adolf Hilter.

To me, this says that we are all connected, quite literally. Not in a wanky spiritual 'we are all one' way, but in a verifiable, literal, scientific sense we are all connected.

I think that's quite cool.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 9 September 2005 1:33:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter has created a poor work of scholarship.
This article is so full of straw men, non sequitors, self refutation and ad hominem attacks that it is suprising it did not simply implode.

A couple of clues Peter. When you discuss an idea, try and actually deal with the idea you are discussing (in this case ID) rather than your own straw man.

When you try and discount any natural means of knowing anything about God and instead appeal to the idea that you can only know about God from scripture, then you are shooting yourself in the foot as scripture tells us we can know about God from nature.

Finally, you talk about God not having creating a 'thing' but instead a 'setting'. This is pure rubbish. You cannot have the setting without the thing. It is absurd to pretend otherwise
Posted by Grey, Friday, 9 September 2005 4:02:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating.

Such a cogent and intelligible set of arguments against creationism and intelligent design cried out for some form of resolution. What does a certified religionist then believe in, if not in the words of the Bible, or the work of modern born-again evangelists?

It must be imprinted in my DNA or something, but I am intellectually incapable of parsing the sentence "[t]he generality and ambivalence of nature may be contrasted to the particularity of the witness of scripture."

Please, what is the particularity here? The bible is a man-made item, put together as a selection of writings by a series of ancient scribes with an agenda. Yet it is being presented (yet again) by Mr Selleck as some form of "constant", despite the fact that - and here we agree - the writing is frequently metaphorical or allegorical rather than literal, and therefore of litle use as a prescriptive device. These are mere words we are discussing here, little gobs of pigments, vehicles, solvents and driers on a piece of processed wood-pulp wrapped in animal hide. If at some point I come around to the idea of a deity responsible for our being here, it is far more likely to arise from "the generality and ambivalence of nature" than a bunch of short stories put together from 850AUC onwards.

Or if someone were to find evidence for intelligent design. Now that would convert me.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 9 September 2005 5:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
"Or if someone were to find evidence for intelligent design. Now that would convert me."

I think that is what the zealous evolutionists are scared of.

Of course, if Anthony Flew thinks there is evidence for intelligent design, maybe you should take another look?
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php
Posted by Grey, Friday, 9 September 2005 10:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This essay makes excellent sense, of course. Why religionists would WANT to get mixed up science is beyond. If Intelligent Design WERE science -- that is, if it were based on any kind of scientific evidence -- it would be liable to change. Suppose they got a bunch of funding from fat-cat partisan backers like Pat Robertson and the U.S. gov't and opened up an Intelligent Design Institute where they started doing genuine research. And what if their targeted inquiry into design-related questions produced solid evidence that human beings WERE the product of design... by extraterrestrials?

Not to give anything to Intelligent Design, I think it is important to distinguish between the evolution of life and its genesis. Evolution is pretty well incontrovertible, but I think it's fair to say that scientists do not fully understand how life came into being in the first place. Possible problems with hypotheses about the latter should not be presumed to cast doubt on the former.
Posted by gnosys, Friday, 9 September 2005 11:28:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hoping the following may fit in,

Just guessing, but one who believes more in moral philosophy, did Darwin himself ever deny there was not a being out there similar to Aristotle's Great Creator, not necessarily human. Darwin also claimed he was still a devout Christian, criticising those go-getters who began using his evolution theory, to become more inhuman and merciless in war as well as business deals. Also Darwin never really denied Aristotle's conception of a deity, and his compassionate moral reasoning as many have praised him for, was in many ways far moral and superior to those fanatical Christians today who believe in the necessity of total war and preemptive strikes, much more Old Testament Promised Land-style Biblical teachings than the more charitable teachings of Jesus the Nazarene.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 10 September 2005 12:11:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What sort of evidence would serve as evidence of intelligent design? If an extraterrestrial life form had a finger in the primeval soup then that finger must have acted on the physical environment according to the laws governing that environment. In that case we would observe remnants of that activity. Unless, of course their role was simply to infect the earth with pre-exiting cells that evolved to produce life on earth. In that case the problem of the origin of life is displaced to another place and another time. If however these aliens somehow guided evolution in its path, how would they have done that given what we know about how the physical world works. Such an enterprise would have needed vast laboratories capable of doing on a massive scale what our DNA labs are beginning to do on a small scale. You would think that we would know about such and undertaking.

The idea that some supernatural entity could have had a hand in evolution is even more problematic because it posits a realm of which we can have no evidence: the supernatural. We can have no experience of this realm because it must exist apart from the world that we inhabit. Any incursion of the supernatural upon the natural transforms the supernatural into the natural as a force or influence like any other natural force or influence.

The God proclaimed by Christian theology cannot be identified with either of the above two options. For as Karl Barth says: “while there is a godlessness in the human, in view of the Word of reconciliation there is no humanlessness in God.” God does not dwell in the above where the human is not present. ID gets it wrong because it ignores the humanity of God and that this God is earthbound and tied to us. It posits a god who is supernatural but which nevertheless may influence material processes. We must get back to the particularity of the Christian tradition, the God we worship is revealed in human history as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other.
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 10 September 2005 11:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree that ID should not be taught with Science, I very much doubt your reasoning "We must get back to the particularity of the Christian tradition, the God we worship is revealed in human history as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other."

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. ~Andre Gide

As I doubt you Sells.
Posted by Trinity, Saturday, 10 September 2005 12:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

I can readily agree with your general argument about the folly of ID, but not with the rejection of the idea that God is in nature. “The Word of God is written in two volumes: the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Creation.” These words of Thomas Aquinas keep echoing in my mind as a reminder of my experiences with the natural environment. As a result of these experiences the concept of “immanence” seems indisputable to me. Matthew Fox’s “creation spirituality” – as distinct from “creationism” and “intelligent design” theories – must surely be an approach whose time has come.

Do you reject this?

Crabby
Posted by Crabby, Saturday, 10 September 2005 2:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,
In your last post,I think you are touching on the concept of terraformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming

Terraformation of other planets or moons is in the theoretical stages at present, but with advanced technology it may be possible in the near future. About 100 yrs ago our knowledge in areas such as computing, biology, genealogy etc was minimal compared to now, but within the next 100 yrs, our technologies would probably become so advanced, as to be able to carry out terraformation.

If man did have the technology to carry out terraformation, then should it be carried out . I would think ”yes“. We already carry out reafforestation of areas of land that support minimal life, so as to increase the amount of life on that land, and terraformation is just an extension of that.

However if man were to seed another planet or moon with life, then that life may have to be especially manufactured or tailored to suit the geography, atmosphere, radiation levels, gravity etc of that other planet, but we are already creating GM life forms, and man’s ability to create life forms that would be suitable for existence on another planet is only a matter of time away.

With reafforestation of an area, it is best to carry out initial planting or seeding, nurse it along for a few seasons, then leave it alone to develop it’s own ecosystems, as too much external interference will only weaken those ecosystems.

I would think the same with terraformation. Carry out initial seeding, nurse those life forms along for some time, then allow them to develop on their own. But if this is done, then eventually those life forms would have no idea that they were purposely seeded into the area originally.

However certain genes could be incorporated into those manufactured life forms, that would always give them a commonality. One of those genes could be the theoretical “God Gene”. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 10 September 2005 2:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little bird said.............
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 10 September 2005 2:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabby.
I am reading Eberhard Busch “The great passion” which is his introduction to Karl Barth. I say this because I find that much of my thinking comes out of the thing I am reading at the moment. Barth has a lovely section on God as the truth, not a list of truths but the truth that unmasks all of the lies of mankind. The focus on the cross finds its meaning in the unmasking of men and women who thought they stood for the truth but who framed and killed the only true man. When we look at the world we see truth, indeed it is the scientists job to reveal truth about the physical world. We see the natural love between parents and children and communities who share a common life and look out for each other. The evolutionary psychologists record such things. But there is a difference between seeing truth in the world (Romans 1) and in using the structure of the creation to deduce the activity of god and his existence. This is how natural theology fails, by looking for God in the wrong place. The thing that raises us from our respective deaths is the event that unmasks the lie that is dressed up to look like the truth. It is in this event that we see God as truth and this is the event that we absolutely need to become human. The problem with a god discovered in nature is that it has no humanity. Barth tells us that there is no unhumanness in God, he does not dwell above where humans are not. So I sort of agree with Aquinas, he is a person easily quoted out of context. The problem with our thinking is that it has been so formed by the quest of natural science that we tend to interpret everything in that context
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 10 September 2005 3:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Been thinking, give this a try,

The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant declared near the turn of the 17th century, when he became unhappy with the tactics of Napoleon, that there is now revealing proof that from now on, not one man, nor one nation, should ever be trusted to rule the future world. Better a Federation of Nations, selected by all peoples of the globe.

We have now got instead, a unipolar nation with all the weaknesses that Kant himself had stressed. One single nation, which declares it has the power to forbid all other nations opposing this power, revealing itself as a reborn Rome which totally destroyed Carthage, and every person, building, and everything the culture represented, states like Israel allowed to keep their puppet monarchs. How much future Iraq, could be like those Roman subject states, though with US troops withdrawn, and a Dyarky democracy managed from the White House, with Israeli nuclear rockets right close by Iraq and ready.

We note the present White-House lineup, with Dick Cheney, not George Bush, much first in line - Cheney with Paul Wolfowitz masterminding the whole shebang since Gulf-War One.

Along with other neo-cons, American Zionists and ex-oil-executives like Condoleeza Rice, and we must not forget to add again that the presence of corporation man, Dick Cheney, means that all the US slaughter, from up high, has been mostly for Iraqi oil.

And if it comes to prove that the Iraqis will be double-crossed, we Westerners will inherit a world not ruled by British gunboat colonial diplomacy, but by US missiles nuclear tipped, for Americana, the only way an angry world can be policed.

But world problems have reached the stage to be not fixed by modern missiles, but by moral understanding. For our classic English grammar has become all mixed up - terms like “liberalism and rationalism”, when applied to freedom, do not mean a unipolar Americana corporate capitalistic global takeover, but simply a “moderation in all things”, followed by the “freedom for the peoples of our world to share and share alike.”

George C, WA, Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 10 September 2005 4:45:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Of course, if Anthony Flew thinks there is evidence for intelligent design, maybe you should take another look?<<

With respect, Grey, one thing that Anthony Flew did not do was to suggest that there is any evidence for intelligent design, he merely said

[biologists' investigation of DNA] "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,"

Please note, once again, that no evidence is being presented here, simply the thoughts of an 81 year-old who has striven for answers to philosophical questions for most of his life. Unsurprisingly, he never quite reached the answer to life, the universe and everything, so - quite naturally - gave up thinking at all. He really summed it up by saying:

"It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Hmmmm. Very convincing evidence, that final "I suppose".
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 10 September 2005 5:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers may be surprised to learn that what the Christian churches say and or preach about “Jesus Christ” has nothing to do with the Biblical record of a man by the name of Yeshua Hanotzri (Jesus of Nazareth) and that their “received spiritual traditions” e.g. doctrines they proclaim,were the creation of men whose names are totally unfamiliar to most of the human population. The ignorance surrounding this man is so pervasive that even those modern day adherents of the “New Age” faithfully mouth the falsehoods as though they were some kind of transcendent truth. New Age of course does not imply new thinking. As a mater of record they attend to the worst manifestations of ignorance in theological matters, as do the followers of modern day creedal Christianity.
Those religions, which come under the general heading of Christianity, did not arise with Jesus of Nazareth.
The religion of Jesus was that of his forefathers. He did not start a new religion, was a practising member of his synagogue and as an observant Jew attended the Temple in Jerusalem, although it could be said that he formed a radical group within Judaism that opposed the self indulgent teachings of the Temple Priests who he accused of collaborating with the Roman occupiers and in doing so denied their countrymen any semblance of social justice.
Christianity as a religion is the amalgamation of old pagan religions into a compromise religion, which had more to do with politics than religion, and over the centuries finally embraced all of the old pagan religious concepts, which Christianity was supposed to replace.
Developing creedal Christianity had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and it certainly has nothing to do with the Bible or with "a particular creative act of God".
For two thousands years Jesus has been churchified. Jesus became a literary creation in which he had to conform to the deliberations of ancient councils and reflect ecclesiastic narcissism.
What the churches of Christendom preach with respect to Jesus of Nazareth represents the most vicious and obscene lie ever perpetrated on human kind. SAS
Posted by SAS, Saturday, 10 September 2005 5:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SAS,
There are many theories regards Jesus, but say you were going on a expedition to some distant place (eg an expedition to a distant island in the middle of an ocean, an expedition to the south pole, an expedition to another planet etc). Who would you take with you to make up a crew?

Personally I would want to take a crew who knew how to operate the boat / dog sled, / space craft etc, and I would want a doctor, and probably I would want a theologian or someone of religious background.

Persons I would not take would include Social Scientists, politicians, TV celebrities etc, as I think that with such people as a part of the crew, the chances that the expedition would be successful would be much reduced.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 10 September 2005 7:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My only objection to Dr. Sellick's article on Intelligent Design is on the general point of natural theology. Scripture itself tells us that the created order speaks of its Creator. Although what it tells us is far from being exhaustive in breadth or detailed in depth, it does tell us "of the glory of God" and acknowledges itself (nature) as his handiwork (Psalm 19:1). The New Testament affirms this in a slightly more specific way saying that God's "invisible attributes his eternal power and divine nature" are "clearly seen" and "understood" through what has been created (Romans 1:20). Now, my intention is not to quibble over words, but Dr. Sellick is apparently unwilling to go this far: "It is not clear what nature has to say to us and we must conclude that if has anything to say, its message to us is ambivalent".
Posted by alyosha, Sunday, 11 September 2005 9:09:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To SAS,

Your reasoning is so interesting and believe as a political scientist and self-professed moral philosopher, that it does not harm the compassionate conception of Christianity one little bit.

A study of Western History and philosophy back to the Golden Age of Greece, does tell how Alexander the Great
before he died ordered the building of a library in Alexandria, the Egyptian city built in his honour. Also the Great Library, as it became called, was later badly damaged by devout Christians, during AD years. However when Jesus was a lad, it is intimated by some historians that the future Christ might have attended the Great Library.

At least, because most of the attenders of the Library were Jews apparently of enquiring mentality, very likely these were the same people whom it is said in the New Testament that the boy Jesus impressed with his question-asking or his devout reasoning.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 11 September 2005 1:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alyosha,
I would think that having an ambivalent attitude towards nature would not be a sole characteristic of Christianity, or of any other religion. For example, people who have very little contact with the natural world, would probably develop an ambivalent attitude towards nature, and with so many people now living in cities; having an ambivalent attitude towards nature could be becoming the norm for many people.

But maybe the concept of ID should be incorporated into Biology classes.

Present the students with a simulation exercise, whereby a bare, lifeless planet is given to the students to do with it as they please. What would they do?

· They could declare the planet a natural park, and make laws that prohibit mankind from interfering with that planet.
· They could carry out some type of mining or exploitation of that planet.
· They could carry out terraformation of the planet, and seed the planet with suitable life forms.

I think that it would be an extremely interesting and educational exercise for those students, as the technology to carry out exploitation or terraformation of another planet, may be available within 50 – 100 yrs
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 11 September 2005 2:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Scripture itself tells us that the created order speaks of its Creator<<

Well, that's all right then.

When will it occur to you scripture folk that it speaks only that which you want to hear? Boaz will read into it what he wants to get out of it, in the same way that he understands other folks' scriptures (i.e. the Koran) only in the terms of what he, as an individual, wants to get from it.

What is not at issue is that these documents were written by people, ordinary people. Nostradamus wrote stuff too, that some people believe actually has meaning - but once again, these folks are only seeing the interpretations that they want to see.

I have no problem with this, people are after all entitled to believe that Nostradamus, or Matthew or whoever, holds a key to understanding some of life's mysteries. But that is a purely personal, individual understanding, and holds no objective value. It makes no sense, if you are trying to illustrate a point or fortify an argument, to use the Bible, the Quran or Nostradamus' prophecies as an end in themselves. By all means refer to them as illustrations of how a person or a particular group of people thought at some point in the past, but to rely on "the scriptures tell us" as a form of proof statement, intrinsically proven and entire of itself, is utter self-delusional nonsense.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 11 September 2005 2:54:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, -I won't (read into it what I want) my understanding of the revelatory value of the natural creation is limited to the exact same thing mentioned by Aly.. "The glory of the Creation and its Creator" that's it.

Scripture says as much, -who am I to go further.

SAS.. I think you need to read more widely, and investigate things more openly. The 'Theories' about Christ are the Biblical ones, (the real ones) and the 'rest' i.e. false ones.

Now, Pericles (who is soon to be converted :) mentioned "If one can find evidence of intelligent design, that would convert me" of course, the 'evaluation' of the evidence is the more crucial issue there, but his point remains valid, and applies very much to you also in regard to Jesus.

Most 'theories' about Christ begin with some idea which is conjured up out of the neurons of the theorist, which is then applied to the evidence, which in turn is re-constructed to fit said theory. The classic example is that of Rudolph Bultman eminent German theologian, who spun it like this. "People today are not raised from the dead, therefore Jesus could not have been". Which is on a par with "There are no Date Palms today in such and such an Oasis of the Arabian desert,.. therefore there could never have been."

So, perhaps a re-examination of the ACtual source material would be in order. By all means survey the material on various 'source' theories for the Gospels "Q" for the synoptics etc.. dependance on Mark + "Q" or however, but still, FF BRUCE has a pretty good grasp of the issue:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

There is no space here to list and demonstrace the vast array of weaknesses and self defeating directions of many liberal theologians, but to my mind they are definitely there.

Our perception of many issues will truly depend on our heart condition, and our relationship with Christ (or lack thereof) but at least I wish to make some small contribution to balance up your rather negative and aggressively hostile approach to the evidence.

Cheers all
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 11 September 2005 3:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter wrote "He is a God of the gaps, a being we posit to fill a lack in our understanding." Exactly - this is true of all religions and all gods - man creates god, rather than the reverse.

Later, "If we want our children to learn about God let them be taught from the Bible ..." No, let us teach ourselves and our children to know ourselves and our world through direct experience; this is the only way we can know the divine, not through intermediaries or the written or spoken word.

Peter, I was once a great admirer of Bertrand Russell. But then I discovered that it was possible and necessary to go beyond the reason and intellect if we were to develop true understanding and purify ourselves. Can you go beyond your intellect?
Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 11 September 2005 4:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, I've just seen your reply to my post on your previous column, in which you thank me "for putting the opposite case so well" and recognise the importance of overcoming attachment. You then say, incorrectly, that seeking non-attachment "inevitably leads to a dualism between the good that the self aspires to and the evil of the world," and that the consequence of this "is that the world is neglected and this accounts for the state of disarray of Buddhist countries." This dualism is an intellectual concept; non-attachment is found by the non-intellectual practice of direct, non-judgmental, detached observation of reality as it manifests from moment to moment.

As for your comment on "Buddhist" countries, Buddhism is an organised religion whose adherents are often ignorant of, and do not adhere to, the core teachings of the Buddha. Even so, I find that in Burma there is among the people a level of harmony and unselfishness which is rare elsewhere, even though there is an oppressive military regime which keeps a tight rein on the monks.

I have been fortunate to meet several saintly people (as well as Bertrand Russell!). One of their distinguishing characteristics (along with love, compassion, non-attachment) is a great pragmatism. In seeking to help others to develop saintly, or if you like Christ-like, qualities, these saints are acutely aware of the merits and demerits of the people and situations they deal with, and how best they can help people. They put their efforts to best use in helping suffering humanity at the deepest level.

You then queried my comment that ”reality has to be the basis for any spiritual development,” responding that "The question is, what is the reality that is that basis, the “reality” of wishful thinking and ideology or the actual experienced reality of the world." Reality is reality; here and now, something that can be directly experienced; it can't be found in ideology or wishful thinking. If you don't know how to have such direct experience, please let me know and I will advise. (And I am male.)
Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 11 September 2005 4:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, does a "robust design" vary between different faiths and religions?

And if it did, why is so many variety existing?
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 11 September 2005 4:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Faustino,

Faustino, your attitude to social science could mean that you ultimately only believe in a kind of divine faith as purported in both Old and New Testaments. But you must admit that while much of it could be part of what is termed a Divine Plan, much of it is twisted to suit the ego of some much more earthly and ordinary personality, like our present US President.

It could be suggested also that when we are close to death we become very personal about things, the loss of being in touch with our loved ones, but possibly above all that personal one, is there truly another life up or out there somewhere?. Certainly the Bible has taught us how to be in touch with the Divine in such a crisis. But it is the social scientists, or the philosophers such as Bertrand Russell et al. who can look at the Divine Inspirations of our leaders, and wonder sometimes what they are up to?.

You must agree that the powers that be, on both sides need a good dose of what social scientists call moral philosophy, not with a Bible or the Koran in one hand, and cutlass or a scimitar in the other. And, in fact, many social scientists say both sides are wrong, and in fact, with our greed for hegemon and contraband and so much lie-telling about it, we so-called true Christians could be more on the so-called evil side than the other.

The problem with both the Bible and the Koran they both can be interpreted to justify the Promised Land syndrome, which to be sure, the Lord Jesus never gave agreement to, not on earth, anyway, only the promise of heaven.

That is what good social scientists say about Holy Books, they seem to be a mixture of the presence of some sort of Holiness, but like the Revelations of St John the Divine, somewhat fictional, and very very dangerous if taken as Gospel, as is proven with some of our cousins in America. Becoming more like stormtroopers than true followers of Christ.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 11 September 2005 5:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FAUSTINO

I'm going to be a bit cheeky here.. would you please provide a short list (could not be more than 2 or 3) of the famous dignitaries you have NOT met ? :)

As for Bertrand Russell, he did the world (and wanna be philosophers or forum contributors) a great favor by summarizing the views of the major thinkers of Western Philosophy and putting them into a book. (which is one of my cherished possessions)

May I recommend that the best way to overcome 'dukkha' is to be transformed in mind, heart and will, by not a 'list' of things to do or not do, but by the indwelling risen Christ who renews one from the soul up. Much 'dukkha' is caused by sin, so repentance is the medicine. Much dukkha is caused by guilt, and forgiveness is the solution. Instead of trying to stop craving, it is better to redirect the carnal craving towards a worthy object, that way it is not supressed/repressed. God, through Christ is the noblest of focus.

Cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 11 September 2005 6:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
"one thing that Anthony Flew did not do was to suggest that there is any evidence for intelligent design"

Err, It seems he said there was evidence in the very quote you listed. That the vast complexity of dna WAS evidence of intelligent design. He clearly felt there was evidence and your attempt to spin what he said is transparent. (Note, he didn't attribute the intelligence to any particular God)

Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Evidence again. Flew keeps using that word.

<On scripture>
"Well, that's all right then.
When will it occur to you scripture folk that it speaks only that which you want to hear? Boaz will read ... only in the terms of what he, as an individual, wants to get from it."

Deconstruction is irrational, denying the possibility of communication. I could apply the same comment to your own writing and make it 'speak only to what I want to hear' to decide you agree completely with everything I say.

The absurdity of this concept is evident, UNLESS you admit that the authors intent and meaning can be known to some extent by a reader, in which case your point becomes irrelevant.

"... but to rely on "the scriptures tell us" as a form of proof statement, intrinsically proven and entire of itself, is utter self-delusional nonsense. "

You inability to see outside of your own presuppositions is disappointing. The comment was made in the context to someone who was using scripture as a guide and so was talking to someone with vastly different presuppositions to you. If you take the time to think outside your worldview you might have seen the point of the comment. As it stands, it's clear that you don't want to.

Sells
"I say this because I find that much of my thinking comes out of the thing I am reading at the moment."

Which is troubling in and of itself. Your thinking must not have much of a foundation to be led so easily.
Posted by Grey, Monday, 12 September 2005 8:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells wrote, inter alia, "After all, the stocks of the Church are so low ... we need all the help we can get".
Later, "It fills the census with believers while the church withers"..."When we look at the current malaise of the church we need to look no further than this".
I think Sells is looking in all the wrong places to explain the Christian Church's maliasse why their stocks are so low and why the church is withering.
Oceans of blood were spilt over disagreements concerning questions like: was Jesus’ divine and his human nature ‘separate’ or ‘blended’; was Jesus equal with the ‘father’ or inferior to him; was the Holy Spirit equal to the ‘father’ and the ‘son’ or merely a created force? And similar absurdities whose origin is the vivid imagination of the early church fathers.
Creedal Christianity, considered against the positive and constant testimony of the earliest Gospel tradition, its natural background of a developing first century Galilean charismatic religion, leads not to a Jesus as recognisable within the framework of Judaism and by the standard of his own verifiable words and intentions, but to another figure –“Jesus Christ”-: who has no relationship to the Jesus of the Bible.
Mythological Christianity is in the final analysis responsible for its own failures and inability to reach the vast majority of people today, because of its failure to embrace Jesus of Nazareth without the accumulated nonsense of the early church councils from which the creeds emanated. The alternative? “Thus says God, stand in the way and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls”.
I agree with Sells that "we should leave science with the scientists ..." I will add a corollary 'leave theolgy to the theologians. However, "If we want our children to learn about God let them be taught from the Bible not a pseudo theology that has conformed itself to the world" (of paganism and that conformity being reinforced by majority decisions of 4th to 8th century CE ecumenical councils).
Posted by SAS, Monday, 12 September 2005 10:33:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But there is pressure from some sections of the church who look at the theory of evolution with dismay because it lacks any kind of theleology, any goal towards which it seeks to progress... Creationism is derived from a literal reading of the first two creation narratives and would have it that the universe was created in seven days a few thousands years ago - and that God placed dinosaur bones is the fossil record to amuse palaeobiologists. In the face of the discoveries of modern science this is just too silly for words."

Saying something like this makes it obvious you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what Creationism is about.

Here is what it is NOT about (Scroll down):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Here is what it IS about:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Have fun
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you actually are a proper creationist then, Yngnl..t? Do you believe the world is actually 6000 years old? Did God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith? Does the lack of dust on the lunar surface prove creationists right? What about that shrinking sun?

I find creationism really interesting, because its a fantastic example of how much human will can triumph over human reason. If you want to believe something, you can, despite all logic and sense.

Fascinating :)
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<<<<<<"But there is pressure from some sections of the church who look at the theory of evolution with dismay because it lacks any kind of theleology, any goal towards which it seeks to progress... Creationism is derived from a literal reading of the first two creation narratives and would have it that the universe was created in seven days a few thousands years ago - and that God placed dinosaur bones is the fossil record to amuse palaeobiologists. In the face of the discoveries of modern science this is just too silly for words."

Saying something like this makes it obvious you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what Creationism is about. >>>>>>>
____________________________________________________
He said, that one said, once again he said and other one more said-how boring and lacking of any particular data but references to something in Koran, which is a 6th c.AD translation into Arabic of the Old Testament-Torah, and speculations on J. Christ’s eventual opinion and possible blessing of historical issue which is Jewish Palestine. Need history occurred any blessings if even by the most prominent of her Sons?

What is certainly, an avoidance of any answer to a particular practical question, of mine surely.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 12 September 2005 1:31:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I guess I've found a great place to waste some valuable time in my few free evenings. So, is it only believers that find in Scripture what they want to hear? What about non-believers? And how could you substantiate the claim that only "scripture folk" find there what they desire to find? (for there are plenty of things to terrify the believer as well as console her) If one finds in Scripture only what one wants then you yourself find what you want: reasons to disbelieve it.
But this is all beside my point, which Dr. Sellick encouraged me to post on this forum: simply that Scripture itself testifies that nature tells of the existence and of the Creator and even some of his attributes. That's all I was airing. What Scripture says. Obviously whether it is true or not is up to debate. But Dr. Sellick accepts the authority of Scripture and so it was relevant for me to challenge his thesis about natural theology.
Charles
Posted by alyosha, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:36:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all,

This is my first post on Online Opinion – no idea how the protocol works but here goes &#61514; I am a 39 year old Anabaptist Christian guy who lives in Melbourne. I suppose that is enough for now.

I offer the following observations:

I doubt that Peter Sellick (or Barth to whom he appeals) are unaware of the various biblical texts that speak of nature witnessing to God. The problem with reading this as an independent source for a natural theology is that this claim arises specifically within the witness of a particular tradition viz. the particular witness of Israel and the Church. The heavens declare not the glory of Deity per se but specifically Yahweh, the God of Israel and the Church – but this recognition comes about only for those who have been previously schooled in the narrative of Scripture.

All natural theology can do apart from some specific narrative (whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Humanist etc) is posit that there may be a Deity, many Deities or even no Deity in accordance with their narratives.

Theistic and non-theistic accounts are rationally compatible (to what degree is another question which I will not address here) with what Peter Sellick terms the ambivalence of nature. That is to say, Nature does not compel any of us to conclude that “Yes, this is Yahweh’s creation” (Jews & Christians) or “Yes, this is Brahma’s dream” (Hinduism) or “Yes, this is the Goddess manifest” (Paganism) or “No, the cosmos is all that is, all that ever shall be, and all that ever will be” (Humanism quoting Sagan).

Some Christians contest this via appeal to Romans 1 where Paul speaks of the divinity being clearly seen. However, Paul is here taking on board a general assumption common to Jew and Gentile alike in his day - that nature indeed does display deity (atheism is not a live cultural option for Paul in his setting). What was contested is “which deity?”, which he goes on to elaborate precisely by appealing to the narrative of Scripture in Romans.
Posted by Jarus, Monday, 12 September 2005 4:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh, Spendo, we meet once again.

To be honest, I think both theories are equally viable, and neither proven. However, I get ticked off when I hear clergyman discrediting the Bible- particularly if they do so in ignorance.

Your last three questions would be the type those ignorant of Creationism would pose. From an atheist/agnostic, that's fine, but from a Christian? Unacceptable.

If you're going to believe the Bible, believe the Bible. If not, don't. Don't dilute it just because others have rejected it. And then, after all of that, do not have the audacity to say the book has some relevance to everyday life. If it can't stand the test of time, questioning, science, etc. what right does it have to speak of ethics, morality, faith, etc.?

I'm sure you would agree with me on that? We disagree, in that you believe evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe there are reasonable doubts.

But we agree in another way: You were annoyed with me in the other forum because you thought me ignorant of the theory I discarded. I share that same annoyance with Sellick.

Peace.
YnLI
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Monday, 12 September 2005 5:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

Part 1

I have had a closer look at your article and note that you basically argue against ID on theological grounds. I note that you are a scientist and office bearer in the Anglican Church.

Thank you for a very well written and thoughtful article bringing the insights of Karl Barth to the subject matter.

I would like to offer you some observations from the viewpoint of a christian in the reformed tradition.

1. Reading your piece, I was left wondering exactly to what extent you have read and understood the main ID protagonists – Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and people associated with the Discovery Institute?

2. I think your assertion that ID’s sole basis lies in a negative does not do justice to their position, and possibly even uncharitably so,

3. whilst at the same time I think your comment about the inadequacies of the fossil record a trifle disingenuous – a subject about which the best that can be said is that the extremely extensive fossil record that we now have has a rather embarrassingly large number of gaps in it if we are trying to argue in favour of evolution.

4. And again, whilst modern biology no doubt is going “from strength to strength”, that growth I suggest has little if anything at all to do with the application of the theory of evolution in any practical sense.

5. ID theory is still very much a theory in its infancy, a fact readily acknowledged by its proponents.

6. You assert ‘creationism… would have it that the universe was created in 7 days (6 actually) a few thousand years ago”. Better to say that there are creationists who so assert (frequently and loudly if you like), but equally there are creationists taking the Genesis accounts seriously who nevertheless see no difficulty in a universe billions of years old (see for instance Henri Blocher, “In the Beginning).
Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 12 September 2005 6:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

7. my main disquiet with your article is your attempt to disengage God from his creation. You know Psalm 19 &104 as well as I do:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world", and so on

8. I can understand an atheist pouring scorn on such a notion, but not a christian. God certainly does create a “cosmos”, and a world which he has inhabited with a vast array of life forms demonstrating incredible diversity, complexity and complementarities.

9. And then that created world, as you say, becomes, “the setting for the covenant between Him and his people”. I liked that bit.

10. No theology I know of “narrows the creative act of God to the first 2 chapters of the Bible”. Certainly all those creative acts you list follow on from this first creative activity of God.

11. I would like to suggest the christian is a person who looks at God’s revelation in nature through the spectacles of God’s revelation in Scripture, and when we do, we indeed see God’s handiwork, even if marred by the outworking of man’s rebellion against God (Romans 8:18f)

Hopefully, tomorrow night I might have a chance to comment on the remainder of your article.

Cheers for now
Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 12 September 2005 6:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YngNLuvnIt,
Funny that you would use that link as a reference to what Creationism is not about. Looking at the article shows that it is in fact a direction to creationists about what arguments not to use. Each of those 40 odd arguments have all been used at some point and been successful enough to become well known and have been debunked.

Sells is not your ordinary Xian, he doesn't believe in the resurrection or other miracles. He sees truth in the narrative rather than the truth of the narrative. What's more interesting to me is the inerrant view vs. the liberal view of the Bible.

"And then, after all of that, do not have the audacity to say the book has some relevance to everyday life."
I'm an atheist and I say it has some relevance to everyday life, not all of it of course, but it has some; the same is true for most narratives.

"If it can't stand the test of time, questioning, science, etc. what right does it have to speak of ethics, morality, faith, etc.?"
Goodbye Bible. How about the hopefully inarguable fact that the Bible wasn't ever meant to be a scientific work? That it was meant to be about the laws, morals and traditions of a particular group?

To me, it seems that more faith is required to accept an inerrant view of the Bible, since it involves taking a view contrary to evidence and reason(eg. The age of the universe & world, the fossil record (not to mention evolution)) and being morally selective (that's gonna get me roasted). But a liberal, purposive and historically aware view can accept the Bible as a poetic work containing the culture and stories of the Jews and early Christians that has been written, edited and compiled by man, but inspired by God and the authors' understanding of God. One has to have faith in the general accuracy of the thing and faith in one own's understanding of God, but that is true for either view. The inerrant view provides certainty and a hand to hold.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Palmer.
I appreciate your comments though I will not try to answer all of your points. The center of my problem is to do with the god we end up with when we begin our talk about God in terms of him being the creation of a thing, the cosmos. This is particularly dangerous for us who breath the air of natural science with its understanding of cause and effect and with our objectification of nature. When we begin thus it is too easy for us to arrive at a god who has to be an object in the universe like other objects. This god has to be a force or intelligence apart from human beings. It is then very difficult for us to know if this is a god of our own creation as the atheists quite rightly point out. If this is the case then this god becomes a factor in our equations and is at our disposal as an explanation. God loses his sovereignty. However, the bible tells us rather than us looking for god and finding him in nature God has turned towards us as one for whom no room was to be found and who was finally pushed out of the world by the lie that we tell about god. This radically changes our language about God. God can no longer be other in a supernatural way as in Greek religion but God meets us in the human as the other, indeed the other who is true man. This is the one who went into the far country of human estrangement and who suffered the full extent of that. You can see that we are already far from the kind of language that we would use if god were a factor in the big bang or in the evolutionary process. The meaningless of evolution is an aspect of human estrangement and cannot be covered by positing a god who is active in it.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My arguments against god being an active agent in evolution do not rely on the truth of the theory of evolution but on how the Christian tradition talks about its God. The new creation that comes about in Jesus is not a new creation of rocks and mountains and seas it is the new creation formed in those who have been raised from the death of the human lie, that very same lie that framed and murdered Jesus. We are dealing here not with a cosmogony that explains the coming into being of stars and planets but with the coming into being of the children of God, of the kingdom, of the end of history as the struggle for pre-eminence of one over the other in which the lion will lay down with the lamb etc. We may of course say that we believe that God is creator in both ways, of the thing and of human salvation but the importance of the former will inevitably suck the life out of the latter, especially in our time when natural science is so much in the ascendant.

I must modify one thing that I said. The creation is not ambivalent. While it is not a mind that can be conscious of our presence, it is good. Thus it is not demonic, it does not consciously marshal forces of evil against humankind, neither good. The rain falls on the good and on the evil. As the good creation it praises God.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see we are to be dominated by theologists, as per the original feature journal. I’ll add this to the melting pot.-
The concept of ID seems to have sprung from perceived ‘holes’ in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Life seems too ‘ordered’- should not a ‘random’ process result in a ‘random’ result ie. should life not be a mess, a quagmire, not as beautifully organised as it is? The answer to this is no. Pure luck has played a massive part in your existence. Take the unbelievable situation & de-emotionalise it. Work with it for the past, present & future.
The uncertainty that seems to surround Darwinism could be one of determinism. In no way does Darwin suggest that we are subject wholly to the forces of nature in this process. We contribute to our evolution, conciously or not, & should do so in a fashion that benefits all humanity.
Posted by Swilkie, Monday, 12 September 2005 8:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Out of interest, for those reading this forum who think that ID should be taught in science classes, do you also think that a young earth model should be taught in science as well?
From what I have read on sites like AiG etc. it appear that the two go hand in hand. Or is there a group of people who think the earth is 4.3B years old but who also believe that macro-evolution etc. doesn't exist? Would you also want to teach that physics is wrong when it comes to radioactive decay or that hydrodynamics is wrong when it comes to geology? Maybe we could teach some alternative views on astronomy that allow for only 5000 years worth of photons?
I'm just wondering where you would want the line drawn with regard to all the branches of science and what sort of criterion do you use to decide? If we had two theories for the speed of light, how would you decide how much of each to teach?
Posted by Zytheran, Monday, 12 September 2005 8:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been following the creationist/ID attempts for over twenty years, waintng for them to come up with a plausible description of how the natural world came into order. Sadly they have only given false hope to hundreds of thousands by ignoring or, sadly, distorting the work of thousands of scientists as if there was a massive conspiracy on their part. Ignorance is forgivable, but willful ignorance is shameful. How Brendan Nelson can give such a flacid response to the question of ID being taught in schools is dificult to fathom. By leaving it up to misled parents to decide what is taught in science classes opens the way for a range of unfounded assertions to be taught. There is plenty of scope to teach a range of creation scenarios, but not as a science subject.

Peter's argument ties in with his previous writngs with respect to the church trying to conform to the Enlightenment, and coming off second best. A spiritual understanding of our place in the universe is crippled by focusing on the material.
Posted by Anthony, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, your reasoning needs more clarification at certain points to be convincing:

1)Psalm 19 & Romans 1 and other passages have already been noted. Calvin (reformed) minimised general revelation for similar reasons I think, so you have good grounds for caution. But to completely reject these sorts of passages without resolving the issues they raise is problematic.

2)“science should be left to the scientists” … hmmm... I think a wider debate is often appropriate, just as at times it may not be appropriate for the police anti-corruption unit to be the only control over perceived corruption by a small number of police. Perhaps you should define who you mean by the terms “scientists” and “the church”. Furthermore, my understanding is that school science classes aim to prepare future generations of scientists, but also of engineers, technologists and users of technology. I think it is good training to relate science to life-questions. Making science more interesting might arrest the lamentable decline in enrolments in Australian science faculties. I majored in physics – a declining breed it seems.

3)You claim that God created a setting without the thing? hmmm... Hebrews 11:3 deserves more attention, despite the debate about its grammatical structure.

4)You dislike ID because it assumes that the designer is intelligent, and our view of intelligence is human, and therefore we create the designer in human image. Yet your argument is not necessarily so. Postulating the existence of a designer does not necessarily infer anything much about her character (even less than 1Co14:33), any more than the laws of thermodynamics deny that people can influence the distribution of energy. In fact it may even (dare I say it?) be good science to postulate a designer: “Today we observe stuff caused only by a designer therefore in the past this sort of stuff must have been caused by a designer.” Difficult to test – but so is the converse.

5)Why must the supernatural necessarily be beyond our experience? Subatomic particles were once beyond human experience, but can now be studied.
Posted by jjh, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:57:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zytheran: Yes, there are people who believe in an old earth who don’t find current theories of macro-evolution convincing. A couple of my physics lecturers at what I believe is the largest university in Australia fell in this category, I think. Also, young-earth views do not necessarily deny the physics or hydrodynamics you mention, but may question the validity of some (unverifiable?) extrapolations and inferences drawn by some theories about the origins of stuff. Personally, I think it is good scientific practice to keep an open mind to both options. But I do think that random macro-evolution should not be taught as fact, or as the only possibility. Also, a claim that life was not caused by an intelligent designer seems no more provable that the converse—both are probably statements of faith, but the latter is at least notionally provable in the legal sense (if the designer talks with us). Of course we should not discount the possibility of science explaining the detail about how life might have randomly formed, even though we have been waiting at least 2500 years for it (maybe that’s not quite fair, even if it is true).
Posted by jjh, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 1:08:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My my, this is fun.

Boaz,

>>The classic example is that of Rudolph Bultman eminent German theologian, who spun it like this. "People today are not raised from the dead, therefore Jesus could not have been". Which is on a par with "There are no Date Palms today in such and such an Oasis of the Arabian desert,.. therefore there could never have been."<<

You happily debunk Herr Bultman's position, but use precisely the same reasoning to support intelligent design. The absence of evidence (palm trees, raisings-from-the-dead) is an exact parallel with the absence of evidence for ID. As Grey so succinctly puts it in his post, Flew's "evidence" is

>>That the vast complexity of dna WAS evidence of intelligent design<<

In other words, ID is evidenced by a lack of evidence on how DNA might exist without ID. There seems to be a touch of circularity here. It does the venerable professor no credit at all to relinquish his prior position, purely on the basis that he couldn't get his head around the complexities of DNA. And to excuse this lack of rigour by baldly stating that he is "following the evidence" is very poor form. You cannot define evidence simply by calling it evidence.

Grey also very carefully separates the two halves of my comments on using the scriptures as self-evident proof statements, which is also, in my book, poor form. The fact is, I am unwilling to accept the scriptures at their face value, and use them as proof statements in and of themselves as some do. To use this as evidence of an "inability to see outside of [my] own presuppositions" is a precise inversion of the reality. I am sure that there is a word that describes this rhetorical device - describing the fallacy in your opponent's argument in terms that exactly define your own - but if there isn't, there should be.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve heard that so many times. ‘I know SCIENTISTS who don’t believe in evolution, so I win! La La La La…’ come on. You know damn well that for every scientist who doesn’t accept evolution, there’s one thousand who do. All that tells me is that there are crackpot scientists out there. Wow, crazy scientists, stop the presses.

‘Also, a claim that life was not caused by an intelligent designer seems no more provable that the converse’…oh man, I’ve been over this in the last forum. Of course you can’t disprove ID, because it’s not falsifiable. For a theory to stand up to proper scientific testing, it must be falsifiable, that is, there must be a test that could prove it false if it weren’t true.

Evolution is the only theory regarding the origins of life that is falsifiable. There have been countless tests, any one of which could prove evolution false. The results, time and time again, verify evolutionary theory. It is the only theory that stands up to rigorous scientific testing (ands stands up astoundingly well), and is therefore the only theory that can be considered scientific.

Macro-evol…I’ve done this before too! Man, I’m caught in a web.

If you accept micro-evolution you must accept macro-evolution, because they are the same process and no one has ever provided a decent reason why change should stop at the boundary of the species. The boundary doesn’t exist, it’s just a concept.

Something I’ve noticed – it seems the evolution proponents here are forced to spend all their time defending evolution, and never getting a chance to attack creationism or ID. It’s a lot easier to poke holes than it is to defend. I might think of some questions to ask creationists…such as…well, how do you explain….uh…EVERYTHING?
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:51:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles & spendocrat - you go guys!

ID is such a dead end - imagine if Louis Pasteur looked at his petri dish and thought what a mystery lies here, must be god and that was that.

We owe so much of our lifestyle to science and as science continues to discover more, so will our lives change and evolve. Science has never claimed to have all the answers - in fact that is the whole point. The more we learn the more there is to learn.

Whereas religion claims to have all the answers and this is why it is such a dead-end - anything or anyone who claims to know the truth should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

BTW watched Compass the other night - all about Isaac Newton - bit of a religious nutter it seems - predicts the apocalypse in 2060. Should still be here to see if it is true. Sort of shows just what religion can do to scientific research.
Posted by Xena, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:10:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo, XENA, once again!

< Pericles,
I guess I've found a great place to waste some valuable time in my few free evenings. So, is it only believers that find in Scripture what they want to hear? What about non-believers? And how could you substantiate the claim that only "scripture folk" find there what they desire to find? (for there are plenty of things to terrify the believer as well as console her) If one finds in Scripture only what one wants then you yourself find what you want: reasons to disbelieve it. ...

Charles
Posted by alyosha, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:36:41 PM >

Nothing to add.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:27:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 1:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm getting kind of over this, but:

"evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that... there were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago... It is a fact that... all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

"The earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun": these things are observable, the rest of the above merely fits into theories which are possible within the observable.

To put all of the above into the same category is just plain wrong.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 1:59:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Boaz - (1) name-dropping - point taken! I do need to be taken down a bit sometimes, but am currently recovering from several years of serious illness and total loss of self-esteem, there's probably a bit of self-boosterism in there (but it's true, I have met a lot of well-known people)

(2) Bertrand Russell - yes, I agree, it's why I went to see him, and I had his History of Western Philosophy in my ruc-sack when I first went to India. But rather than, as I had thought possible, finding wisdom/knowledge which I could synthesise with my existing Western wis/know, I found something else, and felt sorry for BR that he had not also come across it I'm sure he would have achieved even more

(3) Re overcoming 'dukkha' - I disagree with you. I think that dukkha (broadly, for those who don't know this Pali word, suffering, the unsatisfactory nature of conditioned existence) arises from craving and aversion arising from ignorance. My belief isn't at an intellectual level, but from my practice. I think that in referring to repentance and forgiveness, you are talking about the surface, so-called "conscious" level of the mind. But this is a very small part of the whole, it is in the so-called sub-conscious (which is in fact always alert) that our problems arise and must be dealt with, in which craving and aversion can be reduced and eventually eliminated, so that we do not commit unwholesome actions (sin) and we do need forgiveness in that we will no longer judge or condemn. I follow the practice taught by the Buddha (no, I haven't met him!) and more recently S N Goenka, and have found it over the last 30-odd years to be very helpful, both for myself and for many people of many faiths or no faith.

And, bushbred, no, I don't believe in divine faith or a divine plan as you surmised, my faith is based on empirical testing, on a solid basis.
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 2:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Just so you know, your full quote was originally in my response, but the 350 word limit forced me to cut it down. As it stands, my point remains the same. In the context of the discussion with Peter, there was no problem in arguing the way I argued. You failed to consider the author's intent and audience of the post, and so your comments are really addressing your own misintrepretation, not my point.

"In other words, ID is evidenced by a lack of evidence on how DNA might exist without ID."

Rubbish. Known designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity, and no known non-designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity. As such, it is a simple positive inference based on evidence, not lack thereof, that can detect design.

Spendocrat
"Evolution is the only theory regarding the origins of life that is falsifiable. There have been countless tests, any one of which could prove evolution false. The results, time and time again, verify evolutionary theory."

Nonsense. Name 3 tests that have been done that could of proven evolution false.

"If you accept micro-evolution you must accept macro-evolution, because they are the same process and no one has ever provided a decent reason why change should stop at the boundary of the species. The boundary doesn’t exist, it’s just a concept."

More nonsense. Limits have been observed time and time again. Darwin's finches, with their beak size changes, oscillate around a mean. There has been no experimental observation that supports the notion that the process has no limits. There has been observations to support it does have limits.

Xena
"ID is such a dead end - imagine if Louis Pasteur looked at his petri dish and thought what a mystery lies here, must be god..."
How ironic you talk of Pasteur, as he was the one who experimentally showed that life does not come from non-life. This finding has never been contravened. As such, the scientific thing to do is assume that natural law and chance are insufficent to explain the origin of life.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 3:30:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Grey, just saying "rubbish" and "nonsense" isn't going to cut any ice here.

"Known designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity, and no known non-designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity. As such, it is a simple positive inference based on evidence, not lack thereof, that can detect design."

What you have done here - and you know it - is to introduce some terms that have no clear definition, and to proceed to use them in a manner that supports your argument. Once again, using your premise as a self-defining proof. Same old same old.

The lack of definition in "irreducible complexity" is well known and understood, but it might be worth going over briefly here. Michael Behe described IC thus in his book "Darwin's Black Box"

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

The key furphy here is what, exactly, constitutes a "system". Dunkelberg's summary is still the neatest:

"How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part', 'system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system."

Irreducible complexity is simply another Wookie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 5:23:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey said: "Known designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity",

Well im assuming the pencil im chewing is a designed object, but I’d hardly call that complex.

Actually im willing to bet out of all the 'known designed objects'(we primates produce most of them) their common property, regardless of complexity, is that this complexity is completely reducible.

Being someone who makes their living from design, I would suggest that simplicity and elegance is a virtuous principal of good design (have a look at an ipod some time, now that’s design). And secondly that design is in itself a process of reduction, whereby the endless possibilities are slowly (incredibly so in the case of architecture) reduced to a physical object.

Now compare that to the chaotic mess (wonderful as it is) of failed species, extinctions, favourable and unfavourable mutations and constant competition (natural selection anyone?) that makes up the constantly fluctuating biosphere of this planet.

Grey, you do your argument no favours to suggest that all designed objects are complex, and all non designed objects are not, thereby saying since life is complex it is evidence that it must be designed. Such a statement is clearly illogical and in fact has moved no further towards evidence than, as pericles put it "ID is evidenced by a lack of evidence on how DNA might exist without ID", or even more simply again "the god of the gaps". as usual we are going around in circles.

I guess you would say that 'mans creations are a pale imitation of gods', or something to that effect, but I would suggest that this is also problematic for your idea since you are clearly basing your 'evidence of design' as you said it, on a positive inference of a correlation between what you observe as being characteristic of man made (known design, which I have already suggested is problematic) and a godly designer.
Posted by its not easy being, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 6:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Known designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity, and no known non-designed objects show high specified complexity and irreducible complexity."
You mean other than biological objects? I'm serious, well sort of. I know you don't accept those as non-designed, but the theory evolution easily explains "high specified complexity and irreducible complexity", Pericles' point on the meaning of IC notwithstanding.

Complexity in evolved forms is almost inevitable; it's what happens when new things get added to old things. The things that form part of a biological process will evolve just like anything else and that will mean that they will adapt themselves to the features of the process. The different parts of the biological process will evolve together, adapting to each other or in other words, becoming more specific.

Irreducible complexity, when defined as above, is just that parts in their (current) form are interdependent. The main ID argument here is then that no individual component could have evolved individually, so it must have been designed. This is an obvious false dichotomy, and reveals a serious misunderstanding about how evolution works; the simple explanation is that the components evolved together over time or from an earlier version of the system where parts were not so closely dependent. If the total incapability of a certain system to have evolved could be shown then that would be fine, but it has never been done and the fact that these complex structures grow up from small groups of cells into will make that very unlikely.

I would like to remind posters again that evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is not about the creation of life, it is about the development of species. Evolution fits perfectly with God putting the first cell on Earth and then letting it evolve.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 7:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As much as this discussion about evolution is interesting the point of my article was not essentially about creationism versus evolution. It is obvious that I am on the side of evolution and I think that the arguments marshaled on its side have been rather good. However, the main point is about theological methodology. Do we argue from below, that is from the impossibility of evolution, the historical fact of miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus to God or do we favor a theology from above in which we accept the Christian story of God making His move towards us? Our scientific orientation would favor the former, where is the historical evidence? It is my view that theologians who take this path (Pannenburg) end up with a stilted theology that is dependent upon un provable historical fact. What happens to this theology if the bones of Jesus are discovered? In the same way IT does it’s theology from below and is likewise contingent on the vagaries of science. In opposition to this Karl Barth accepted the bible as proclamation and did not rely on historical fact (other than the existence of the man Jesus) to bolster his view. Scripture was accepted on its own terms in a way that we would now call “post modern”. He did not feel the need to deal with Darwin in his doctrine of creation because he felt that the science of evolution had nothing to do with the creative word of God. It is obvious that this is the better path, the first quest for the historical Jesus did not help theology and the second quest, now underway, will fail as well. The desire for evidence is post Enlightenment thinking applied to an inappropriate subject. The objectivity of theology is that object presented to us in scripture. That is why I have insisted on using not scientific language to make my point but the language of the church.
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:31:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Getting back to the main thread, teaching ID in Biology...
Given that a theory is "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, and which has testable implications." Wikipedia. I'm just wondering when the teachers start talking about ID what are they going to propose for some tests? And how will god be used to explain the observable facts of evolution? When the kiddies point out that whoever designed the human eye really botched it up by designing it back to front when they could have used better designs seen in other creatures what is the answer? When they ask about the many flaws in human anatomy what is the answer going to be? "God made it so"? And if the defence is "man used to be perfect but fell from grace" what are you going to show for evidence of the perfect man from Adam's time?
Posted by Zytheran, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is the evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? Aside from the New Testament,(Post Paul's genuine letters) there is no independent supportive documentation, nor is there any circumstantial evidence. There is not even one contemporaneous historian who mentions the resurrection. The claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament. It was gentile creators and defenders of incipient Christianity who promoted the stories of the resurrection. Their testimony must therefore be examined more carefully.

Between 55 to 65 CE Paul wrote a series of letters. All composed before the Gospels were written. In I Corinthians 15.3-8 (NB.1 Corinthians being one of Paul’s genuine letters) he says “... I Paul passed on to you...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers ... then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me.” This is the first recorded reference to the resurrection. Paul used the phrase “he was raised” As Bishop Spong has written. “...To Paul, Jesus was not restored to life in his original body ... Rather, Jesus was raised from death into the presence of God in a spiritual body. Paul believed (1 Corinthians 15.50) “...Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. Paul is unaware of the empty tomb, of the bodily resurrection, of the visitation by one or more women, and other details of the resurrection story written later in the gospels. It is also doubtful that other Christians knew the story at that time. The account was created after Paul’s death. It is implausible that Jesus appeared to a crowd of more than 500. A dead man talking to a group would be such a miraculous event that word of it would spread very widely. The incident would have been recorded by other Christian authors and also by non-Christian historians of the time. No trace of the group of 500 exists.
Posted by SAS, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 10:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,
I think that what you are saying is that the Bible (or at least the New Testament) should not be taken literally, nor should it be used as a history book, or as a science book.

If that is what you are saying, then I would have to accept that.

However ID is being carried out by man right now, and it has been occurring for some time. Man has been caring it out by developing genetically modified produce, developing man made viruses etc. (and the latest technology seems to involve building living organisms, molecule by molecule http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Scientists-creating-life-from-scratch/2005/08/26/1124563004159.html)

With even more advanced technology such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, nuclear fusion etc, man will have almost unlimited power, and will be further capable of producing many different things, and that will include producing many different life forms.

In effect, man will become God, but whether man will use all this technology for good and not evil, is of course another matter.

So personally, I think people should get into the practice of simulating the future, to make sure we are prepared for the future, and have enough morality to handle the new technology. And that could start in Biology classes, and aspects of ID should be incorporated into those classes, together with some of the moral issues of ID
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 10:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 3

I like Peter’s emphasise on engaging on “the hard slog of finding God in our received scriptural traditions” and his desire that we tell our children “the stories of old, about Noah, etc”

Deuc says “Sells is not your ordinary Xian, he doesn't believe in the resurrection or other miracles.”, while Timpkins writes, “Sells, I think that what you are saying is that the Bible (or at least the New Testament) should not be taken literally, nor should it be used as a history book, or as a science book.”

If this were true, and perhaps Sells needs to make his position clearer, then I think it rather undercuts his Scriptural argument for if we can say anything for sure about what the Bible has to say, it is that Jesus Christ is presented as a real person, whose ministry included doing actual miracles of healing, was crucified and then on the third day was raised by God bodily from the dead, and after 40 days ascended to his Father in Heaven so that we are perfectly justified in asserting that he left no bones behind in Palestine.

Now if Peter actually denies this and is looking instead solely for a spiritual meaning only (which of course exists and is paramount), then I can understand his opposition to a serious engagement with Genesis 1&2, Psalms 19, etc to the effect that God was actually involved intimately in the creation of all things as the Creator, or the "intelligent designer", if you will.

But maybe Deuc and Timpkins have got it wrong and led me astray.

I also think Peter does not understand the term, “natural theology” and commend to him J Budziszewski’s “What We Can’t Not Know”, which amongst other things ties natural theology closely in with Scripture. Calvin spoke of special revelation as the spectacles through which we study the general revelation in nature. That understanding would seem to resolve Peter’s (false) dilemmas in my view
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 7:18:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
"Now Grey, just saying "rubbish" and "nonsense" isn't going to cut any ice here."
Indeed. And that is why I didn't JUST say them...but instead followed up with a clear example of why the comments I was addressing was rubbish or nonsense.

I have to wonder why you make such an obviously errornous comment.

"What you have done here - and you know it - is to introduce some terms that have no clear definition, and to proceed to use them in a manner that supports your argument. Once again, using your premise as a self-defining proof. Same old same old."

Not at all. If you bothered to actually read any of Dembski's or Behe's work and their responses to critics I am sure you would actually understand ID a lot better than your comments indicate.

The inference from SC and IC is an inference from the known to the unknown, not begging the question as you claim.

"The key furphy here is what, exactly, constitutes a "system""

Actually, Behe is using the term in the context of biochemistry, where the actual component parts are a lot easier to identify. Of course, if you ever bothered to read Behe's work and responses you would know this.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:12:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zytheran, exactly!

David.
There exists a broad spectrum of approaches to the bible. The fundamentalists would have it that every event reported actually happened as described. This attitude to scripture is rather modern and owes its rationality to an empiricist approach to history. On the other hand we have Rudolph Bultmann who coined the phrase “demytholgise”. He accepted that the miraculous could have no place in the physical world and looked, as you say, for the spiritual meaning under the story. He pursued this program to the extent that even the historical existence of Jesus was doubted causing a major theological problem. If the Word was not flesh what was it? The problem with this approach is that it attempts to arrive at a kerygma which is the truth of the gospel and does away with the relationship between us and God. The kerygma becomes a truth in our hands and therefore at our disposal. Again this approach owes a lot to modernity in which we gasp after the knowledge that will make us lords of the earth. This program produced liberal Protestantism in which the gospel died the death of a thousand qualifications. On the other hand, Barth insisted that the text be taken seriously and the preacher treat the stories as thought they did actually happen. As I have stated this is rather post modern, the narrative has its own warrant.

There are two difficulties with the fundamentalist reading of the bible and what they do with that reading. Firstly we end up with a confused understanding of the nature of the physical world in which god can break the usual laws at will making a mockery of natural science. It also produces unsolvable conundrums such as the whereabouts of the bones of Jesus. It also ignores the subtleties of the text and gives us a cut and dried understanding. The second is the subject of my last post, they then take the miracles as evidence of the existence of a supernatural god who can do supernatural things: a theology from below.
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:00:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey, you asked for three examples. I could give you ten off the top of my head, but I only have 350 words, and they’re complicated, because they’re science. If you’re interested in the evidence, I mean if you genuinely would like to learn, I’ll refer you to www.talkorigins.org as I have done for others. There you will find ample evidence for evolutionary theory. (Also, try http://www.ncseweb.org/ for defending the teaching of evolution in public schools).

Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been debunked. I don’t expect to convince you of this (I’m getting used to the idea of ID proponents only seeing what they want to see), but it’s true. As I’ve said before, for every one scientist who doesn’t accept evolution, there’s a thousand who do. Scientists who don’t accept evolution are not representative of the scientific community and never have been. Do a quick survey of 100 random scientists, and you’ll see what I mean.

Evolution is a theory based on observable fact, just like any other scientific theory. That’s why it’s regarded as science, and that’s why it’s taught in science classrooms.

Creationists and the like have been trying to poke holes in evolution for over a century, never with any significant success. Whenever a creationist idea is debunked (which is regularly), another crackpot idea like ‘irreducible complexity’ appears. I don’t expect this will change for another century, no matter how much evidence for evolution accumulates. Such is the determination of people to believe only what they want to believe.

Creationists and ID proponents capitalise on the combination of:
a) complexity of evolutionary theory, and
b) lack of scientific understanding held by the average person.

A lot more people hear the creationist theory than they do the scientific debunking of said theory. As long as the water remains muddied like this, creationists, ID proponents, etc are able to stay in the game. But in reality, they are yet to provide a single legitimate challenge.

PS: I just found a great article:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp

For evidence I still recommend talk origins, but it’s a great read nonetheless.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

I can see that Deuc and Timpkins read you correctly, though you may argue with their wording though not the essence of what they say.

I will leave it to the fundamentalists to respond to you if they so choose, though whether any of them would recognise themselves in your caricature of them remains to be seen.

You of course in highlighting "Fundamentalists, Bultman and Barth, fail to mention a rather broad swath of "traditional", "orthodox", "confessional", "evangelical" Christians whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant who affirm the inspiration, sufficiency, even inerrancy of Scripture, whilst being perfectly aware and affirming of the different styles employed in the writing, whether narrative, poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, and so on. This was rather naughty of you.

You say, "Firstly we end up with a confused understanding of the nature of the physical world in which god can break the usual laws at will making a mockery of natural science. It also produces unsolvable conundrums such as the whereabouts of the bones of Jesus." This confusion I suggest is in your mind. You are allowing your notions of "natural science" to deny God choosing to do as He please. I don’t know what you make of the traditional doctrine of the incarnation that we celebrate every Christmas? I would suggest, to borrow someone else’s phrase, "your God is too small". The Apostles' Creed as understood by the Church down through 2,000 years tells you where the bones of Jesus are and if your science prohibits you from saying so, then I think you need to look at your science again, or more particularly the presuppositions undergirding your science.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:48:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silly me not to realise that this article was not about ID at all, instead just an excuse for theology college undergraduates to strut their arcane stuff.

"We are dealing here not with a cosmogony that explains the coming into being of stars and planets but with the coming into being of the children of God, of the kingdom, of the end of history as the struggle for pre-eminence of one over the other in which the lion will lay down with the lamb etc" (Sells).

This ensures that Sells need only talk to his fellow enthusiasts, as the following exchanges illustrate.

"Psalm 19 & Romans 1 and other passages have already been noted. Calvin (reformed) minimised general revelation for similar reasons I think, so you have good grounds for caution. But to completely reject these sorts of passages without resolving the issues they raise is problematic." (jjh)

"You claim that God created a setting without the thing? hmmm... Hebrews 11:3 deserves more attention, despite the debate about its grammatical structure." (jjh)

"The desire for evidence is post Enlightenment thinking applied to an inappropriate subject." (Sells) (What!!??)

"If the Word was not flesh what was it? The problem with this approach is that it attempts to arrive at a kerygma which is the truth of the gospel and does away with the relationship between us and God. The kerygma becomes a truth in our hands and therefore at our disposal." (Sells again)

I am sure there are many other places where these fascinating and educational debates about the grammatical structure of Hebrews 11:3, angels dancing on the heads of pins etc. can take place in peace and quiet. As it stands, these posts remind me of an exam question I once saw:

Q: Define the universe; give three examples; write your answer using only vernacular Anatolian sanskrit. (20 mins)
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 3:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whew! What a divergence of outlooks in the article and comments.
But, back to the article: "It's not a good idea to teach Intelligent Design in our children's biology classes." Could be, from a number of points of view. But, If I were a biology teacher with such a burden placed upon me, I might take the opportunity for some practical demonstrations of "design" for the malleable young minds to decide how intelligent they might be.
Prior to the exercise, I sould in all honesty have to state that the concept of ID was that of a minor number of adherents to just one of the several major religions of the six billon people on this planet, and that this small minority were the only ones wishing to have the concept of ID forced into their science curriculum.
Perhaps the first practical demonstration would be (by video) of a lion despatching and devouring a lamb. By design, if the lion is not up to this task as a normal thing, it starves to death.
Maybe the second demo. would be watching a preying mantis devouring alive the meal necessary for its survival. By design, all its meals are taken this way.
Of course humanity would have to be represented. For teenagers, a dip into Reg. Morrison's "Plague Species" and Mary White's "Earth Alive" would give a wonderful overview of mankind's place on this earth. For immediacy, I would show them video clips from documentaries of the fringe-dwellers of Lima (Peru) and Mexico City, with footage of Swiss suburban life sandwiched in between. Taken together, these three video footages would give some overview of the range of design pertaining in the current Christian part of the world.
Perhaps the Intelligent Designer did no more than has been suggested; and he threw a seed which fell to earth, where and how he does not care.
Whatever "Intelligent Design" is, it has nothing to do with science.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 5:25:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat: You argued that “For a theory to stand up to proper scientific testing, it must be falsifiable, that is, there must be a test that could prove it false if it weren’t true. Evolution is the only theory regarding the origins of life that is falsifiable”

This is the standard Popperian line. Maybe you have read Part II of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. But your conclusions are not as firm as you think:

1)“Popper's final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossible to discriminate science from non-science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific statements alone” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Crit, sighted April 2005)

2)“Were the central ideas of Darwin or of the modern synthesis falsifiable? To complicate matters, Popper changed his mind on this central question, viewing Darwinism as a historical hypothesis in Objective Knowledge [1972], and as an unfalsifiable near tautology in Unended Quest [1976].” (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DD052SECT3, sighted April 2005). This may be a natural outworking of his view of historicism.

Back to my statement: I think that random evolution as the origin of life should not be taught as fact, especially in schools.

Sells: you mention the first two quests for the historical Jesus. What have you read about the third quest? Any Ben Witherington?
Posted by jjh, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 8:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jjh said "I think that random evolution as the origin of life should not be taught as fact"
At this point in time the actual origin of "life" is still a mystery to science so have no fear about it being taught as "fact".
Dang!, we are still trying to work out whether viruses are counted as living!
What this debate is about is whether evolution has led to the variety of life we see today (and in our past) or whether we are seeing some "intelligent" (I'm using that term extremely loosely based on the evidence) designer with very little change since it was 'made'.
And the real crux of the matter is whether the observable and measurable world working to the known laws of science, in an open system with natural variation in climate, energy etc. can lead to the increasing complexity seen in multicellular organisms. or... ID supporters can claim the genetic diversity is due to constant negative mutations applied to perfect, pre-fall creatures and that no mechanism for increasing functionality exists. (Or nothing changes.. but that's a bit daft)
Given these two hypotheses, the question is, which has the larger amount of better quality observable evidence? Given a differing amount of evidence how much time, effort and money to spend teaching on both?
And a large part of this equation would need to be the usefulness and explanatory power of the observable world based on each hypothesis.
One major problem the ID folk appear to have is that thinking God designed everything doesn't get you very far with regard to practical uses of that knowledge. It sure wont help you deal with something practical like bird flu when it aquires new functionality.
And furthermore, as I pointed out before, and I'll do so again because the ID'ers never responded, how do you explain quite bad design? Humans are not perfect and there is no real evidence they ever were (some story in a book doesn't count for evidence here). How come humans didn't get the best eye design? Now that really sucks.
Posted by Zytheran, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 9:52:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jih, you have one person saying that he does not accept evolution being falsifiable as evidence. If you like, I can provide you with quotes and articles from professors, scientists, anyone important sounding...saying any number of following:

a) The moon landing was a hoax.
b) I've been probed by Aliens.
c) Freemasons run the country.
d) Tin hats block the mind control rays.
e) The apocalypse is coming in 2006, 2008, 2012, etc etc.

What I'm saying is this. Quoting one persons claim means very, very little, especially when you stack it next to the overwhelming consensus of the entire scientific community.

Even if you're only trying to cast doubt on that consensus, it's still not enough to even turn a head slightly. You'll have to do better.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is just silly ID is based on the idea the life is irreducibly complex. This idea flies in the face of history, our understanding of nature increases every year and will continue to. Just because we are ignorant of some process now does not means we will in the future. Care to give any examples of something that we have not learnt more about ? 200 hundred years ago there were a number of competing ideas about origins they have fallen by the way side by careful testing and evaluation of the facts. No discoveries have disproved evolution. A simply test for evolution is showing a complex animal in the wrong geo-layer, can you give me any examples of this? ID states that only micro evolution is possible so all major life forms where "created" in roughly their present state. Therefore there should be fossil evidence to support this, is there?

My video is irreducibly complex to my Mum!
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 15 September 2005 2:24:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, I agree with your comments about the fossil layer but suspect that you've missed the point on ID. ID is a means for those who want their god to have something to do to deal with the evidence for evolution. They argue that just as your Video could not have occurred by juggling the raw components around for a long period our wonderful universe could not have occured without some serious help.

I would prefer to take my chances on chance than trust to their deranged gods.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 15 September 2005 2:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah it's confusing, because as Deuc pointed out, there's nothing about evolutionary theory that says God couldn't have kicked off the process, by planting the first seed, so to speak. So there's no need for religious people to deny evolution. Many important religious figures believe that science and religion can go hand in hand.

Evolution is not an attack on religion. But it certainly looks like ID is an attack on science.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 15 September 2005 3:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spendocrat said it on Tues.13th but it, demonstrably, needs repeating. There is no Theory of Evolution. Evolution is an observable fact. It is the name which has been given to describe the process of birth, development and decay. Everything in the universe goes through that process in its own time. Every star does it, every human being does it. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of gods have done it.

The recognition of evolution existed long before Darwin came on the scene.

Darwin’s great contribution was to propose Natural Selection as the process by which biological species evolved. Natural Selection is the only theory which can be attributed to Darwin. That theory says, in essence, that any new form of an organism will only survive to perpetuate itself if it “fits” into the pre-existing environment.

The shock to tradition which the theory of natural selection created was the fact that it did not require the hand of any supernatural force or being. Nor did it require a pre-existing design, much less an Intelligent Designer.

There are many complex problems to be worked out in understanding the process of natural selection. The only tools we have are the scientific ones of observation and experiment. It is not much use to be told that it has all already been worked out by an Intelligent Designer if that Designer keeps the design locked away in a supernatural planning cabinet.
Posted by John Warren, Thursday, 15 September 2005 4:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I might be prepared to go along with Spendocrat's, "there's nothing about evolutionary theory that says God couldn't have kicked off the process, by planting the first seed, so to speak.", John Warren's comment, "Evolution is an observable fact. It is the name which has been given to describe the process of birth, development and decay. Everything in the universe goes through that process in its own time. Every star does it, every human being does it. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of gods have done it." is nothing but sheer hubris, a point I hope, time willing to come back to over the weekend.

Talk about having your head in the sand.......
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 15 September 2005 6:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditto, David, I agree, although I see ongoing involvement of some sort (provenance). (I also agree with your comments about Calvin).

Spendocrat, you missed my point. Karl Popper may have been the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He developed the falsifiability theory, and also the hypothetico-deductive method. As such, he has had a huge influence on a very wide range of scientific thought, and a large number of scientists have found his writings useful in their work. The quotes I mentioned are not the subject of some crackpot (nor did he believe in God the way I do). I could quote a number of other well-regarded scientists, including supporters of biological evolution, who are very cautious about the so-called "scientific evidence" for macro-evolution or evolution as the origin of life. It would seem arrogant to me to ignore (or vilify) this voice.

Many people do speak of science as having somehow proven that life arose by a random evolutionary process, and that species developed the same way (major changes). I don't think this can be proven or falsified by _science_ alone. Furthermore, it seems a little arrogant to exclude the possibility of an external being who acts on the system using laws we already know about or laws we don't yet understand (or in any other way we don't yet understand). It is this arrogance that gets me fired up, rather than evolution itself.

I doubt that considering ID as a possibility would hold back scientific discoveries. There is too much that we don't yet know. A refusal to consider options other than evolution may hold back a small amount of scientific research. My perception is that the major objections to ID are on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.

I look forward to David's weekend post :-).
Posted by jjh, Thursday, 15 September 2005 7:43:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David.
The problem of inspiration is vexed. I am happy to describe biblical texts as being guided by the Holy Spirit and even to be inerrant. That does not mean that I believe in an otherworldly force that guided the authors hand but simply that they (by widely differing paths) came to the same truth.

I am not sure how the creed helps with the question of the whereabouts of the bones of Jesus. Are we to believe that he sits bodily at the right hand of God in some physical heaven? I think that the authors of the NT would laugh at such a suggestion. Resurrection and ascension are about the continuing presence of Jesus with the church and his being at one with the father.

There is a common confusion in both this discussion and the one on evolution between the material and the spiritual. Although this confusion exists in the minds of many Christians it is nonetheless true that Christianity ( and Judaism before it) denies the duality between matter and spirit. We may blame the Greeks for this infection. Spirit in Christianity is not a word that points to another realm that is different from the material. Indeed spirit has its basis in the material just as thought has its basis (ultimately) in the firing of neurons. Any being that involves itself in evolution must interact with the material world and must therefore be of that world. Thus if we are looking for an external influence on evolution we must look for an external material cause.

Similarly, you cannot have the risen Jesus (bodily) being projected into low orbit to sit at the right hand of God in some physical heaven. If this were the case then the Soviet astronauts proclaiming that they saw no heaven would have been terminal for Christian belief. The point about Christmas is that the Word became flesh, the truth became a man. Truth is spiritual in that it cannot be reduced to the physical not that it belongs to a different realm than that of the material
Posted by Sells, Friday, 16 September 2005 9:38:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jih – a ‘philosopher of science’? Look, I’m not trying to discredit this guy, I’m just saying, the overwhelming majority of the scientific world completely disagrees with him. Why you would choose to listen to this one guy, however influential, over countless other influential individuals, is beyond me.

I know you could quote lots of other ‘well-regarded’ scientists, but like I keep saying, that doesn’t matter, because for every well regarded scientist you quote, there is a thousand who disagree. It just doesn’t stack up. Yet creationists to this day think that it means something.

You say it would be arrogant to ignore this voice, and if science didn’t have a good reason to do this, you would be right. But this voice is ignored because evolution has been well and truly established. If someone came along and rejected the theory of relativity, it would not be arrogant to ignore this voice, it would be sensible. Such is the case here.

You may disagree that evolution is falsifiable, but scientists KNOW that it is, so your opinion unfortunately means little. It’s not a matter of belief. It’s a matter of testable and observable fact.

You don’t have to believe me, and it’s not my job to convince you. I’ll just say this one last time:

The greatest scientific minds in the world have been pondering and debating the finer details of science for over a century. Do you really believe that you can step in now and point out something that hasn’t been considered? And that somehow, by some massive coincidence, every single person throughout the history of this theory made a mistake?

It would take a miracle.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Published:
POPPER, Karl, 1980. Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611.

“In the 17 July issue of New Scientist (p. 215) you published an article under the title “Popper: good philosophy, bad science?” by Dr Beverly Halstead. This article, it appears had two purposes:

1. To defend the scientific character of the theory of evolution, and of palaeontology. I fully support this purpose, and this letter will be almost exclusively devoted to the defence of the theory of evolution.

2. To attack me.

As to (2), I find this uninteresting and I shall not waste your space and my time in defending myself against what are in my opinion hardly excusable misunderstandings. and wild speculations about my motives and their alleged history.

Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

Karl Popper
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:05:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat,
You could have given me? What a great defence. You sound like the whiny little weedy kid who blusters how he could have taken the big kid if he wanted to.

I have read a lot of talk.origins stuff. It is put up so often as a model of great answers when really it is quite poor in that regard.

Evolutionists capitalize on the combination of:
a) complexity of evolutionary theory, and
b) lack of scientific understanding held by the average person.

Irreducible complexity is a concept that has not been debunked. I don’t expect to convince you of this (I’m getting used to the idea of Anti-ID proponents only seeing what they want to see), but it’s true

"Evolution is a theory based on observable fact, just like any other scientific theory. That’s why it’s regarded as science, and that’s why it’s taught in science classrooms."

'In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.' - Jerry Coyne, Evangelical Evolutionist

Good to see you didn't actually deal with any arguments put forward (e.g. limits to microevolution) and instead just blustered and insulted. The reasoning and rationality of evolutionists has been reinforced in my mind now.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:15:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey:
‘You sound like the whiny little weedy kid who blusters how he could have taken the big kid if he wanted to.’
And you say I’M the one resorting to insults? Grow up.

Here’s the (extremely condensed and simplified) examples that you said I couldn’t provide:

1. Comparative Biochemistry. The agreement of the biochemical evidence with the anatomical evidence illustrates an important consideration when evaluating the strength of evolutionary theory: namely that our 20th century ability to compare the biochemical similarities among species provided a test of evolutionary theory which had been mainly based on the evidence from 19th century comparative anatomical studies, biogeography and a limited fossil record. If the same overall pattern of biochemical similarities did not agree with the pattern based on anatomical comparisons, evolutionary theory would have been in serious trouble. But the patterns do agree and evolutionary theory is all the stronger because of that.

2. The Fossil Sequence for hominids is a study of the general pattern present in the overall fossil record. That pattern is that modern species are not found throughout the fossil record from top to bottom - which they should be if all species were formed at one time at the very beginning of life on this planet. Instead, what we discover is less evidence of modern species as we go deeper into the fossil and geological record - a pattern that is precisely predicted by evolutionary theory and is also the only pattern evolutionary theory allows for. The chance of this being a coincidence (especially combined with the other tests) is obscenely small.

3. Fossil Intermediates. This refers to the fact that, regardless of the mode or rate of evolutionary change, there should be evidence of morphological continuity over time in the fossil record if species are evolutionarily linked and related to one another. Is there a better classroom example one can use to illustrate this point than a fossil like Lucy with her mixture of ape-like and humanlike features?

There’s tonnes more where they came from. But like I said, I only have 350 words.

..two wordsleft.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 16 September 2005 3:36:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope the other guys on the thread will excuse Peter and I having a little private chat.

Peter,

Thank you for your post. Immediately I had posted my last post I regretted saying “the Apostles' Creed … tells you where the bones of Jesus are” – I did so because of your own reference to His bones. What I also affirm is that the Jesus who ascended to his Father in heaven is the same blood, flesh and bones risen and glorified Jesus that His disciples spoke, eat with and touched between His resurrection and ascension.

Now just where heaven is, I don’t know nor do I enquire, though I doubt it exists within the Universe that we find ourselves in.

Personally I believe Resurrection and ascension has more to do with the Father’s vindication of Jesus’ substitutionary sin bearing obedience on the cross, as well as pointing forward to His future coming again in judgement with the resurrection of the dead. The same body (soma) with which Jesus ascended shall be found for all God’s children for life “in the new heavens and new earth our home of righteousness” - “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” In saying all of this I believe I am orthodox.

Re additional items in your last post, I think I have the stronger doctrine of inspiration. I also think we operate with some similar but also some rather differing conceptions for the relationship between matter and spirit, the physical and the spiritual. I am unhappy with any great division between the two. Christ’s resurrection body was and remains both physical and spiritual, even now at God’ right hand in glory – “it (soma) was sown psuchikon and raised pneumatikon”. At all times he remains in bodily form, though of course utterly transformed by the Spirit.
Posted by David Palmer, Friday, 16 September 2005 4:08:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evolution is a theoritical history developed by deduction from ancient physical data. It’s the assumed sequence of surviving species from environmental change and isn’t the powerhouse that has caused chromosomal change, it’s theory is suitable for a history class not research science.

The purpose of science is research into why and how things happen and be applied – i.e. what’s the actual powerhouse of change in the DNA. It’s the study of the features of intelligent design inherent and latent in the DNA that creates the change and allows the species to survive changes in the environment. Pure science studies the features and cause of chromosomal changes to the DNA i.e. how its chromosomal design can change. In other words pure science searches the physical features of design to conclude intelligent principles of design that are latent in the DNA that cause chromosomal change.

Since atheists don't now identify environment as a factor in change to the DNA, as it is external of the DNA but governs what survives there must be intelligent design features within the DNA that cause or allows it to change independent of external factors. If there had been no environmental changes then all previous species expressed from the DNA could possibly be in existence today. The fact is we live in a changing planet that is affected by many external and internal tectonic forces.

However chromosomal changes that allow survival have intelligent design features that need to be understood so we can copy the intelligence even as humans have done in creative copying history. However the intelligence in design is not developed by desire in the mind of the species but under-girds surviving designed species. The discovery of the camera was a historical event now taught in history class, the principles of its physics [intelligent design] the how and why of its function, is science.

I’m a supporter of scientific research into the features of intelligent design - the why and how in the micro; so that we better understand and use the building blocks that create the features and design of our living universe
Posted by Philo, Friday, 16 September 2005 4:09:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don’t seem to have a grasp of either side of the argument by that last post Philo.
The evolution of animals had been observed and commented about by many people prior to Darwin. What Darwin did was provide the “Powerhouse” for the changes observed. Natural Selection theory has been developed and modified over the years to fit the observed facts. When did Atheists say environment is not a factor in DNA evolution ? that what natural selection is all about. It seems you don’t understand what your talking about. The fact that you have mentioned Atheists indicates what your motivation here is. Fifty years ago we did not know how heredity worked why do you believe that our understanding in areas we currently don’t know every well will not increase? Give us some biology feature that we will never understand?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 16 September 2005 5:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting, at least to me, that Pericles (Wednesday 14 Sept) writes “… fascinating and educational debates about ... grammatical structures as it is this very concept of ‘grammatical structures” that makes nonsense of the argument between the varying camps that promote Creationism, Evolution or Intelligent design.
Unfortunately for those who don’t find debates about grammatical structures fascinating or educational nonetheless it is a necessary ingredient when translating from one language into another as well as using the correct equivalent word used in one language as distinct from another and other such matters as syntax etc. As we know some languages put the adjective after the subject whereas in English we usually place the adjective before the subject.
The first verse in the Bible, Gen 1:1, from which most of the current debate originates, grammatically is in the “construct state” which means in simple language that when translating from the Hebrew into English the word “of” must appear in the English translation.
Therefore Gen 1:1 should read “In the beginning “of” Elohim’s creation the earth was without form and void, (therefore the earth was already existent) and darkness was upon the face of the deep, (therefore the deep was already existent), and the spirit of Elohim was moving over the face of the waters. (Therefore the waters were already existent)
The author of Genesis didn’t argue how the earth came into existence; neither did he argue how Elohim came into existence, they just existed – without comment - which is more than we can say about our present interlocutors on this particular forum.
Maybe, just maybe, some unspecified Creator set all this creation in motion, Elohim was the Intelligent Designer that brought order out of chaos, and that Evolution gradually developed the more complex from the simple.
In this scenario it’s a WIN, WIN, WIN, situation for everybody and we can all then go home to debate such fascinating and educational subjects as to actually how many angels can dance on the heads of pins, for example
Posted by SAS, Friday, 16 September 2005 5:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What fascinates me is that we pass on better physical traits genetically,yet every generation has to relearn what their parents took years find out.In evolutionery terms,it is not very efficient.

We will never know for sure if our consciousness will exceed this life until we die.If we knew anything for sure beyond this life,there would be no point in living.Just having the courage to wake each morning and do the best we can for our families ,is enough.

Those who are pre-occupied with the after life have missed the point entirely.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing is Ajay the ovum from which you were formed was created inside your mother before she was born. So what you mother learned happened post your identifiable determination. If your father could pass on in his contribution to your fertilisation his thoughts, that would be another concept. Perhaps if it were so then would your mind ever change or you only have the experiences of your father. Interesting!

However living forms were created / designed to be continually renewed.

The afterlife is a spiritual state and not a physical state. There are no 40 virgins waiting on the otherside to welcome you. Not good if they were 40 male virgins.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 September 2005 8:42:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
It is a pity that there is not more theological discussion in these pages. This means that my central points are rarely engaged with any intelligence.

I certainly would not disagree with your quotes from Paul, but a note of warning. The radical Enlightenment was fueled by what was perceived as the irrationality of theology. This has cascaded down to our day so that these pages are filled with vehement scientific but almost no theological debate. While I do not propose we conform to the rationality of modernity for which individual experience is the only criteria of truth, we do have to propose a rational theology. That does not mean that it has to be judged in terms of the rationality of modernity but it must be internally consistent and be possible within the world we see around us. Otherwise we just give ammunition to our critics. So we have to explain the bodily resurrection of Jesus in terms that do not contravene how we understand how the world works but does not empty the narrative of its import. The problem with liberal Protestantism is that it did the former but not the latter. The resurrection is a more powerful event if it is not treated as a medical miracle. That the risen Jesus is the crucified Jesus and not some fixed up Jesus whose wounds have healed in crucial to theology. We are not dealing here with a ghost but with the wounded one who was dead and is now alive, that is, present in each Eucharist and each gathering of two or three gathered in his name. The resurrection is God’s act in vindicating the one we murdered and it is also the promise of a new future formed from judgment and forgiveness. When we insist on the resurrection being a resuscitation we are modern in that we interpret the narrative in terms of a physical event but are anti modern because we invoke a mixing of the spiritual and the physical.
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 17 September 2005 11:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

It is good that we can both agree that resurrection does not equal resuscitation. I am also happy with your statement, “The resurrection is God’s act in vindicating the one we murdered”, though we may tease out the meaning in different ways, perhaps?

I must confess I don’t always altogether follow your meaning!

What I see you doing is trying to present the Christian faith in a reasonable way that gives as little offence as possible, which is an honourable thing to do, though I think a touch too concessively. For my part I am content to stay within the envelop of 1 Cor 1:18-2:5. Talking of miracles, I think the greatest miracle today is whenever someone repents and puts their faith in Christ, seeking henceforth to follow in His footsteps.

We will meet up again on other threads and I hope to have more time next year perhaps to do some writing around multiculturalism, Islam. I’m also interested in the origins of life issue and the state of western culture which in my view seems pretty sick and a consequence of the jettisoning of the Christian worldview and Christian virtues – that started long ago, but the fruits of it a certainly now mounting up fast
Posted by David Palmer, Saturday, 17 September 2005 12:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay wrote
"What fascinates me is that we pass on better physical traits genetically,yet every generation has to relearn what their parents took years find out.In evolutionery terms,it is not very efficient".

Isn't what fascinates you Lamarckism, which Darwin refuted over 150 years ago. ID in whatever form you want it to be was also refuted 150 years ago. I can't understand why it has reared its ugly head again. What I also can't understand is why the most technologically advanced country on the planet is being drowned under calls to include this religious ideology in biology classes. Let's not go down this path and follow the US on this issue.

The thing also is if we were truly created you would think that whoever created us would have done a better job
Posted by frat, Saturday, 17 September 2005 1:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Palmer’s (15/9) response to my small attempt (15/9) to emphasise the distinction between evolution as a universal phenomenon and the theory of natural selection as an explanation for the evolution of biological organisms was to accuse me of hubris. I am not sure whether he was using hubris in the Macquarie dictionary sense of “insolence” or ”wanton violence stemming from excessive pride” but, in either case I can’t see any relevance to the discussion.

Many texts on astronomy describe how stars are born from amorphous clouds of gas and how they evolve through various stages until they eventually collapse and explode and disperse their contents in a different form. The theory which governed that process is the theory of gravitation.

David, himself, started as the uniting of two cells into one which evolved through many different stages to become an adult which, unfortunately, is doomed to die and disintegrate. The theories which explain that process are those of chemistry and physics.

Gods started, in their thousands, as imaginary beings attached to small tribes. They were consolidated as the tribes consolidated but then faded as they were displaced. Where is Zeus and his family? Once the greatest god of the Greeks he is now ignored except by historians. The theories governing Zeus’s birth and death are to be found in history and sociology.

The Christian God was only born two thousand or so years ago. It is not long in the scheme of things. There is now an attempt to change and evolve the image of God by substituting a more abstract Intelligent Designer. It is an attempt to sidestep many of the gross contradictions in regarding God as having some sort of human characteristics and an effect on the world at the same time as excusing Him from any responsibility for the evil and suffering amongst us.

Is an attempt to understand the nature of evolution and its ramifications hubristic? If so, so be it, but to ignore the value of understanding everything from an evolutionary perspective is to disregard much of modern intellectual enlightenment.
Posted by John Warren, Saturday, 17 September 2005 3:35:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Philo,what would anyone do with 40 virgins?Imagine next morning with a hangover and being nagged by 40 women.It would be hell in heaven.Is this what made Beelzebub the anti-Allah?Really,some of the religious fairy tales are so juvenile and are an insult to the deity they supposedly pay homage to.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 17 September 2005 5:08:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the awesomeness of nature is a better pointer to God than a Biblical text which, I think, is nothing more than a very good attempt at social engineering.

Which bit of the Bible is God responsible for, the Priestly parts or the agrarian? Don't you think it is a little bit strange that older texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh tell similar yarns? Plagiarism to boot? You could argue that the idea of an interventionist God is a very shrewd bit of propaganda.

Sells you start from the assumption that there is indeed a Christian God. Sells' proof that that unproven God is a Christian God is religion's sayso. To top it off the ID mob want to bring in another explanation for life so that that Christian God can still take credit for Creation and thus maintain credibility. Of course, Sellick hints that only those of superior intelligence can truly understand God. On the other hand, Boaz will tell you that God has to find you – grace. But all the while these explanations of God and Godly actions are always already disproven because the premises from which they follow is flawed. Fix that first.


I think that there is a God so therefore there is a God. (And that God believes in all the stuff the old codgers in Biblical times thought out to explain how we came about – that is a myth – a myth usually stems from a failed explanation). Hence the attempt to undo the failure with ID. Paul had an epileptic fit on the road to Damascus and the explanation was a very convenient conversion. Mary spoke with an angel when Joseph disobeyed the rules of abstinence and to avoid getting a flogging concocted a yarn. All these explanations are constructed in a time before other explanations based on scientific knowledge were possible . Kudos to you Sells for sticking to your path –even if there are fairies at the end of it
Posted by rancitas, Saturday, 17 September 2005 6:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the Bible, Koran and other religious texts should be taught in literature classes along with other fairy stories. I also think the science of modern hermeneutics is the more appropriate discipline in relation to the understanding the Bible and it’s mythology in relation to creation.
Creation, ID are both beyond non-sequitur because at least you must have a premise to draw a faulty conclusion. So if we are to bring science into the study of Creation bring in the correct discipline. And if you are seeking instruction read the Bible by all means, but if you are seeking God well perhaps it is a case of not finding God because of all the religions’gods.
I suspect Peter Sellick that if you were born in a pantheist society you would be writing articles arguing the truth of pantheism.
Posted by rancitas, Saturday, 17 September 2005 6:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In ancient times there were thought to be many gods governing all types of physical activity. Terrestrial gods governing things on the Earth and cellestial gods governing things in the heavens. Even your sexual arousal was governed by a god, like the Canaanite Baal. The multiplicity of gods was debunked 4,000 years ago as it was perceived all events [I say all events] were under one unifying cohesion except man who seemed in rebellion against the best design and practise of nature and relationships.

Since the universe had one unified state where all behaviour of planets, known activity on earth, and processes of life were coordinated, or unified - hence the conclusion there was but one God over all and in all.

If present matter happened by a multiple series of unrelated accidental events, it is natural that all these things would be on conflicing courses and chaos would be the nature of design. Though chaos is present it does not interfere with the cordinated design of life. Where there is life there are cycles of maintenance and decay operating that identify a unity. The unity gives notion to the singleness of design of life in the universe. That One God gave life its character and design.

The resurrection of Jesus was a physical event that involved his own human body. Jesus said after his resurrection that he had flesh and bone; that he was not a spirit. See Lk. 24:39 "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

There had been no essential change to his body except that he had regained its normal functions. The miracle of change was his spirits ascention to heaven 40 days after his resurrection.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 September 2005 8:34:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I promised something by the weekend on Intelligent design. While I’m an Engineer by training with a bit of theology thrown in, I did study Zoology 1 at Sydney Uni under LC Birch and Uncle Tom the Naturalist (ABC Radio Argonaut listeners will recall him) with liberal doses of Darwinian evolution drummed into us by both men - one a professing Christian, the other probably an atheist. Ever since, I have maintained an interest in “origins of life” issues, moving over time from a “theistic evolution” to an “old earth creationism” position as many of my fellow Christians have done.

I think Peter probably unwittingly set the dogs on the wrong target. Peter used the term “Intelligent Design” when he actually meant “young earth creationism”, from which, using a somewhat exotic Barthian dialectic, he wished to distance himself from. Peter was actually looking for more interaction on his theological argument in which we disappointed him, preferring instead to go on a evolution creation bash.

The ID movement was started as recently as 1991, with the publication of “Darwin on Trial”, written by a noted US legal academic, Philip Johnson, in which, using his legal training to full effect, he subjected the main lines of evidence for evolution to searching critical examination. In the process he laid bare the philosophical underpinnings which have always been evolution’s strongest suit – basically, that it is a worldview that replaces supernatural creation with philosophical naturalism to the effect that a Richard Dawkins was able to say evolution, “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Johnson’s argument is that “it is this animus to theism and Christianity”, and I quote my good friend Bill Muehlenberg, “not the empirical evidence, that keeps people committed to Darwinism”
Posted by David Palmer, Sunday, 18 September 2005 4:23:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology. Its “how to explain the appearance of design” that begins the argument. Michael Behe, tenured professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University has promoted “irreducible complexity” present in the simplest organisms capable of independent existence as a problem for Darwinian evolution. Well, I haven’t space here to set out the arguments - if you haven’t done so, I encourage you to go and read Johnson and Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) and the earlier “Darwin: A Theory in Crisis” by the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton, just as we all had to read those tomes on evolution and still do so in their critiques of ID.

ID will not go away. A rather large proportion of the population cannot envisage a creation without a creator, and these days they are finding a great deal of encouragement. This doesn’t mean evolution has no place. Behe is willing to allow quite a deal of space for evolution. He doesn’t even say the IDer need be God, though as a Catholic, he finds it “congenial” to think the IDer is God

We know ID is having some impact when we hear of Anthony Flew, one of the world’s leading philosophers abandoning naturalism for an IDer, (though not to the extent of embracing the Christians’ God).

More recently Philip Skell, a member of the US National Academy of Science, having investigated all the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century write in The Scientist, “”modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodology, not from an immersion in historical biology”, and again he says, “I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernable guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss”. Just so.

It is sad to see the scientific community, by and large close their ranks against ID (but heresy is a terrible thing and its consequences unmentionable), much as the Church against Galileo, but then they (and especially the atheists among them) have so much to lose.

However, some stage, Kuhn’s paradigm shift will occur.
Posted by David Palmer, Sunday, 18 September 2005 4:26:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As is obvious from the above I think evolution is a good theory of the origin of life. Certainly progress in biology is dependent upon new techniques and not so much on newly discovered aspects of evolution, however, the theory of evolution is the background to biological research without which it could not be a unified field of knowledge.

I need not go further into the evolution/creation debate, that has been done very well by others on these pages. It must also be obvious from my original article that I have theological objections to how ID is used; as evidence for the activity of God. It is a sound tenant of theology that it is God who discloses Himself to us not us who discover Him. If God had not chosen to reveal Himself He would remain hidden. Any theology that displaces the movement of God towards us with the reverse risks idolatry since the God we find will be something created in our own image. This is why that God that is purportedly found as the IDer cannot be the God we hear about in the bible, it is simply a different creature conjured up by our curiosity about the origin of life. The bible illustrates again and again how it is God who calls, makes a covenant, weeps over Israel and finally gives himself over to sinful men and women. There are no passages in the bible in which men seek to find God or argue from nature that God exists.
Posted by Sells, Sunday, 18 September 2005 5:01:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,
I suggest you research carefully Romans 1: 20 and decide who is observing who in this verse? Or who can observe without excuse? Even His divine character is clearly revealed in Creation for all men to see.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 18 September 2005 8:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well god has to do better in both his intentions and revelations to us ordinary human folk.Why let men write books like the Bible and the Koran that are factually incorrect.Why were not these books making the slightest reference to the laws of Maths and science?Surely to know god is to know the his laws which govern and define our universe.

The world took six days to create,yet the universe as we know it is 15 billion yrs old.The world was thought to be flat and the Sun revolved around it.Any revelation to the contrary would have had you put to death by the Pope of that time.We have static religions stooped in tradition,ritual and superstition.In contrast we have a changing, dynamic universe governed by laws of physics and maths.

Intelligent design does not have the weight of scientific analysis behind it like evolution to be taught in science classes.By all means let it be taught in during scripture classes.We have yet to prove that intelligence does exist behind the design.

If our religions do not grow wth the discoveries of science,how can they or their concept of any deity be revelant?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 18 September 2005 10:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
What a bunch of nonsense. This shows who is really full of ignorant superstitious beliefs and who's not. It's a myth that people did not believe that the world was round until the men of science revealed it. It's a myth the Pope would've put anyone to death who said the world was not flat. Look, Augustine, having made an unsatisfactory attempt at a literal six days of creation, argued for an allegorical interpretation. Mind you this is in the 4th century. And Augustine is not a nobody - Roman Catholics and Protestants would hold that he's the greatest of the Church Fathers. The Eastern Orthodox would demur of course. You've uncritically and gullibly fallen for a bunch of post-Enlightenment propaganda, and what's worse you continue to propagate it as truth, something no one's who's honest would continue to do. Read your history.

And why, please inform us, must God reveal to the details of the physical laws he created, when He values human souls so much more than anything else He created. The Bible is just the kind of book God would write if what it tells us is true. Like Pascal said, the Christian faith teaches primarily two truths: the corruption of nature, and its redemption by Jesus Christ.

"Surely to know god is to know the his laws which govern and define our universe." What a distorted view of God! How tragic. Is this how you think of people? That to know them is for them to have given you intimate detail on the deck they just built, or the flower bed they just planted. God created man to know him intimately, personally. That involves so much more than knowing how fast he made rocks fall.

"If our religions do not grow with the discoveries of science,how can they or their concept of any deity be revelant?" Religion do grow the discoveries of science. But they grow in their knowledge of God's works. We know so much more from what he's told us about himself which we couldn't have learned from his works.
alyosha
Posted by alyosha, Monday, 19 September 2005 2:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good book to enlighten those who have fallen for some of the myths of Modernity: "Six Modern Myths", by Philip Sampson. Just about anyone, even Christians (or especially Christians) will find some distortions that they've accepted uncritically as truth.
Posted by alyosha, Monday, 19 September 2005 2:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yar! Ye be heedin my warnin's about ignorin falsibility in evolutionary theory, ghargh! How ye be explainin dinosaur fossils if ye be believin the world with it's seven seas be only 6000 years old!

(It's International Talk Like A Pirate day, scallywags.)

Twas nary a year ago twen I tw..found that ol' fossil! Me and my dirty murderous crew o' looters and killers were burying our treasure when we found a fossil that nary could be explained by any yonder theory but evolu'ion!

So fair ye be warned. Leave yonder faith out of ye science class, ye dirty dogs, lest you be keelhauled and thrown to t'e sharks! For today be a day of celebration, garh. Drink ye ale and 'ave ye fill of bread.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 19 September 2005 1:45:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That danger of Darwinism is not that it undermines a material account of creation as is supposedly given in the creation stories, but that it interprets humanity in terms of the animals. This attitude occasionally peeks through when, for example evolutionary scientists explain rape as a biological imperative.

The offensive between science and theology went this way. Philosophers made the case that we cannot talk about God because God is transcendent to us and cannot be known. The theological response was to acceded to this and posit God in the piety of the individual. Thus God was talked about only in terms of man’s religious experience. This proved to be a disastrous retreat especially with the emergence of evolution which made man into an evolved animal and his religious notions with it. The result is that our major universities do not have departments that deal with theology.

This whole process was aided by natural science taking the role of sole arbiter of truth via the empirical method and the insistence of the secularizers that “spiritual” meant “spooky” or “otherworldly” instead of its biblical denotation as belonging to the psyche of men. While the spiritual relies on the material it is not possible to arrive at the former from the latter. We cannot explain thoughts in terms of neuroscience although we can now observe that certain parts of the brain become active when particular types of thought are entertained.

My position is that we can still talk about the spiritual, as do the disciplines of literature, philosophy etc and that this is a respectable academic pursuit. However we cannot recover the language of the spiritual unless we recognise the mistakes we have made along the way that hedge such a conversation around with mistaken claims.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 19 September 2005 5:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is impossible to maintain an intelligent debate, to establish any common platform for it, with someone who is so cluess, so ignorant, of the observed evolutionary process as to state that:
"The danger of Darwinism is --- that it interprets humanity in terms of animals ---." "--- the emergence of evolution which made man into an evolved animal ---."
And there is no hope for humanity if we were all to believe that man is separate from, not just a component of, the changing ecological entity of the world's biosphere.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 19 September 2005 6:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee I've stirred a hornet's nest here.Alyosha"What a load of nonsense!" Collinsett"The danger of Darwinism."
Darwinism is a danger to no one.It is a serious scientific theory based on years or research.Nothing in science becomes law unless it is proven fact with no exceptions to the rule.Using scientific analysis in a court of law,no one would be convicted of any crime.The weight of data,fossil records,diversity in genetic outcomes to cope with environmental changes,makes the theory of evoultion guilty until proven innocent.

We evolved from the apes.Our DNA is only 2% in varience from the Chimpanzee.These are hard scientific facts that no one can deny.I'm agnostic and I say the traditional religions have to do a lot better to convince me and many others of this intelligent design.God must do better to reach the consciousness of our modern educated society.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 19 September 2005 7:24:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ajay,
In the organic physical world man may only be 2% different to Chimpanzee. But I suggest you place a Picaso or Doyle before the chimpanzee and see his appreciation of art. I suggest you place a tool kit and timber at the disposal of the chimpanzee and he should be able to create a home only 2% less professional to the average carpenter. I suggest you teach him English and writing and he should be able to create a discussion paper only 2% less than the human brain.

You see Ajay 2% represents 100% of difference when it comes to abstract concepts, and futuristic planning. Can we employ them in menial tasks to work 8 hours a day with only 2% less efficiency. Not at all; their 2% less in their genome identity is the 100% of what makes us organically different as human. But man posesses spiritual dimensions not only organic difference, which makes us 100% other than animal - This is what defines humanity as made in the image of God. This identity is not organic, it is spiritual of the mind.

If you wish to consider yourself only 2% more advanced from chimpanzee I suggest you find a bright chimpanzee and put yourself to the test. If it turns out that you are only 2% brighter then I suggest you give debating away and let the chimp have a go.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 12:05:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A correction: Darwinism is not dangerous in itself, what is dangerous is how it is at times used to equate the human with the animal. As Philo remarks, 2% makes all the difference. However, I catch a whiff of dualism in Philo. The spiritual is the mental and that is what makes us different from the animals. But the spiritual has its basis in the material, it is not another sphere of being. It is just that we cannot deduce from the material to the spiritual because of the complexity involved.

As for Collinset, the difference between the human and the animal does not let us off from responsibility for nature, indeed it accentuates it.
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 10:12:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the mistake you keep making, Philo. Genetically speaking, 2% genetically different does NOT mean 2% ‘more advanced’ or ‘brighter’. It is obvious that creatively, emotionally and intellectually we are worlds apart from a chimpanzee. But those features are only a small bi-product of genetics. They are defining in terms of our sense of humanity, but they are not defining genetically. You seem to think 2% genetic difference equals 2% flat across the board of features and capabilities, including art, woodwork…productivity(?!). This is completely absurd, and yet another example of your lack of understanding of evolution.

I challenge you to look at our closest ape relatives and tell me that the similarities aren’t striking. Their facial expressions, mannerisms and social behaviour are undeniably humanlike.

Not that that proves anything (the other stuff I keep talking about does), but it is important to note that what we consider to be the most defining, or most obvious features of an animal (including human), are quite often arbitrary.

Now, keeping that in mind, what are the odds that we’d be that similar to apes by coincidence, if evolution were false? 98% genetic similarity by pure chance? That alone is a million to one shot. Then consider all the other genetic similarities between different species, you’re looking at…say….a jillion to one. Not a real number, but for odds like these, new numbers probably need to be invented.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 10:32:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jjh, re:Popper. I haven't read much of his statements, but ISTM that though he says falsifiability is not a definitive test of whether something is science, he still considers it important. If ID is to be science, then it should be similar in many other ways to the historical sciences. I would agree in a sense, that a case could be made that evolution is not falsifiable... anymore. Now that we have so much data to demonstrate that macro-scale evolution did occur, it is unlikely that any new evidence will be of such a nature as to displace that entire body of evidence. Combined with the nature of the subject matter, evolution essentially becomes historical fact, unable to be disproven; yet it *is* supported by lots of evidence and reason. But even though no reproducible tests can be done to test it (as with other historical sciences), evidence could come up that falsifies macro-scale evolution; so I still think it is falsifiable.

John Warren, things change and those things may be based on natural processes as well, but the discussion is about biological evolution. As I have said elsewhere, there is the fact that evolution occurs, the scientific fact that Earth's species developed via evolution and the theory of evolution which explains the mechanics of the previous two.

Grey said: "Irreducible complexity is a concept that has not been debunked. I don't expect to convince you of this (...), but it's true"
What then is your response to the simple criticisms of it that I made on Tuesday the 13th? Surely if irreducible complexity can be explained by evolution, then it is not evidence of ID?

David Palmer,
"Everyone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology."
I don't think so, it's some people attributing a characteristic in order to explain something they don't understand or don't accept.

"A rather large proportion of the population cannot envisage a creation without a creator,"
So? This statement either assumes a creator or is false. Ie. almost everyone could see rain as the result of natural processes.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 10:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would a cloned human have a soul?
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 11:57:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,
Being human is not having a immaterial part we identify as a soul. Being human is a soul, the soul is the capacity to think, memorise, act on conscience etc. You are a soul expressed in a mortal organic body. The spirit is the capacity to think in the abstract and have a consciousness of the divine and the moral.

spendocrat,
Your capacity to read and reason indicates you are only 2% above the chimpanzee. What I said is that the 2% of genetic difference makes us 100% different to chimpanzee. Never did I equate we are only 2% different to chimpanzee's, what I was emphasing is we are far more superior to champanzee than 2%. Ajay was reducing humanity down to 2% above Chimpanzee. My point is the 2% does not represent that we are only 2% more developed than champanzees. To talk about 2% difference is a nonsense.

Quote, "You seem to think 2% genetic difference equals 2% flat across the board of features and capabilities, including art, woodwork…productivity(?!). This is completely absurd, and yet another example of your lack of understanding of evolution."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 6:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keep up the good work Philo, you are doing well.

I think I have run out of puff on this topic, though I would point out to Deuc that I believe my statement, "Everyone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology" remains correct and self evident to most people, if only the observation that everything works so amazingly well (yes, I know about death and decay but that's another story for another day), and the more amazingly so, as the sheer complexity and inter-relatedness of life becomes clearer
Posted by David Palmer, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 9:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So would a cloned human go to heaven?
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 8:56:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendo,
I admire your persistence in the face of overwhelming denial. That ID is not science is the simple statement of this article. That it is more a philosophy/ideology is all that you (and others) are saying.

I think Yng has the right idea. She (?) can question the science of evolution but that is different to trying to teach that ID has any basis in fact, rather than faith. It is a simple concept really…

As Peter says (and I do rarely agree with him!), to mix ideology into the science classroom is damaging to both.
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:33:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Reason!

Quote Philo: ‘To talk about 2% difference is a nonsense.’
Bad grammar notwithstanding, this is what I said! I was telling you not to take the 2% in such a flat board manner, and now you’re quoting me quoting you as if I brought it up…eek! If you’re trying to browbeat me with circular confusing logic like this, congratulations, you succeeded.

I’m tired of this. Science doesn’t need me to argue on it’s behalf, whether some people accept it or not, the fact is that evolutionary theory is strong and sound is not going to be brought down by quasi-religious pseudo-science any time soon (I only hope I’m not over estimating the average intelligence of the population when I say this). I believe sense and reason will prevail, and science class will remain teaching science.

I have asked this question many times now, and not one anti-evolutionist has touched on it, so I will ask one last time.

The greatest scientific minds have debated and examined every inch of evolutionary theory for over 100 years. Do you really think, in all that time, that every single person would miss some technical flaw that would disprove the theory? (For that matter, do you really think they would have any motive to promote the theory if it were questionable?) Do you really think that all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is just one big coincidence, that fossils just happen to fit in exactly with what evolution suggests, that genetics coincidently just happen to look like they operate according to evolutionary theory, that related animals only share locational histories and physical features by coincidence? Do you really think a CENTURY of testable, falsifiable evidence, constant scrutiny and analysis was one big ACCIDENT? Do you know what the odds are of that happening?! ASTRONOMICAL.

The end. I’ve said all I want to say on this topic. If you still have doubts about evolution, there’s a massive body of evidence, and www.talkorigins.org will get you started. Or just refer to my previous posts. I’ve been repeating myself for a while now anyway.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:43:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've done my dash here too, David.

Peter made a perfectly valid point on why ID is not a suitable study in the science lab, and there seems to be little controversy about that. It does no credit, though, to blur the sides of the argument with statements such as "[e]veryone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology", since all you are doing is to stretch the word "design" towards "intelligent design" when it doesn't want to go there.

Of course scientists see "design" in nature. By its very definition, any structure contains within it evidence of fitness for purpose, which we have encapsulated in the word "design", whether for buildings, machinery, silicon chips or the eye. To conflate this concept with the implication of "intelligence" is just a little sneaky, when there are perfectly acceptable alternative views embedded in evolution theory.

The topic is an interesting one, since it has recently grown something of a political dimension, in the United States at least. Having spent a while familiarizing myself with the material - which I probably would not otherwise have done - I am still of the opinion that the sum of ID arguments rests in their ability to stretch the language, as you have.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:56:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The scope and usefulness of the scientific method need clarification.

The scientific method is the appropriate tool for investigating the physical universe, including cosmology, geology, biology, and ecology. It proceeds by steps involving hypothesis, experiment, and revision or abandonment of the hypothesis. When a hypothesis has substantial supporting evidence and no substantial contradictory evidence, it is promoted to a theory.

The testing of a hypothesis must be done by rigorously objective experiment. The testing and proof must be independent of the values and beliefs of the individual scientist, so that another person can repeat the experiment and achieve the same result. The scientist works rigorously to make sure that his/her own views do not bias the investigation, and that his/her presence as observer does not distort the behaviour of the experiment. This process gives science its objectivity and reliability.

There is no place in the scientific method for teleology, and arguments for a hypothesis based on teleological reasoning are inadmissable. It is inappropriate to teach Intelligent Design within the subject of Science.

This does not mean there is no place for teleology anywhere. It means that this lies outside the area of natural science. The scientific method cannot prove or to disprove the existence of God or the creative activity of God, but this does not mean that there is no room for intelligent thought or debate on the role of God in creation. Science provides a body of information about the natural world. An intelligent person looking at that evidence may properly conclude that there is a thread of intelligent design running through it all. Another intelligent person looking at the same evidence may conclude that there is no pattern to be so explained. These conclusions do not lie in the realm of science but in the realm of philosophy, and bring into play reasoning that is not fully objective but includes the influence of personal experience, cultural background and faith or lack of faith.

Intelligent Design may properly be taught within subjects of philosophy or religion, but does not belong within Science.
Posted by Paul B, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 2:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chimps are very intelligent.They can think abstractly,problem solve,use tools,and have a considerable vocab in chimp language.They do not have the vocal chord structure to master human sounds.Like humans they can be very loving,compassionate but also murderous creatures that will attack another troop of Chimps and wipe them out in territorial conflicts.Sound a bit familiar?

Philo speaks about the spirituality of the mind,it was our superior mind that achieved this spirituality.Where is the spirit after 50yrs of marriage,a spouse no longer recogises their partener due to Alhziemers.Now this spouse can still function in other areas to maintain survival.What sort of god would take the last and most precious things of two old people;their memories and conscious interaction.

We are but one of many intelligent animals on this planet.Give them the chance to move beyond survival mode as we have done and intelligence will develop.Other creatures can do amazing things in a protected domestic environment.

We have not advanced enough to grasp the Universe or our place in it,let alone explore another dimension to our being we have no way of sensing or measuring.If there be a spiritual self,show us the evidence.Religions have achieved good and bad outcomes for humanity,yet the concept of us having a special relationship with the "intelligent designer" is very narsissistic.

In evolutionary terms we've been on this planet but a few seconds and seem to think we know so much and are so special.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 6:54:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul B
I would think that ID becomes more than philosophy, but a mixture of philosophy (or morality) and technology (or science).

Comparing a tree to a blade of grass, then the blade of grass is rather small. To a forest, then a single tree is rather small. To a continent, then the forest is rather small. To a planet, then a continent is rather small. To a solar system, then the planet is rather small. To a galaxy, then a solar system is rather small. To a current universe, then a galaxy is rather small. And if multiple universes do occur, then our current universe is rather small.

All depends on perspective, but if someone had the technology that could significantly change life on this planet (eg alter the weather, change the ocean currents etc) then this could significantly change the type of life on this planet.

Is this technology available to do this? That would depend on perspective, as to what technology we have now, compared to what technology and knowledge we could have in future years. But it is now known that the weather can be changed, through altering the ionic structure of the atmosphere
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all our atheist friends who are leaving this thread- Goodbye!

More ideas of design and structure have been learnt by observation of natural reality than theorising about how it got here. The research into the intelligence of the application of structural design in nature has contributed more to humanity than the history of evolution. I am currently working with the application of structural design in building engineering. Most of it learned from principles of design within nature. There is intelligent design in nature we are just now realising.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
are you suggesting that because one does not believe in Creation or ID, one is an atheist? That would be wrong...
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can be sure of the reality that the world exists. We can be sure of the reality that we exist. We can be sure of the reality that nothing in this world can account for its own existence, birth or structure; therefore either the world has an absolute ground and cause, so consequently it is conceivable in the light of reason. Or else the world has no absolute ground and cause, and we must be satisfied with ascertaining the existence of the reality that is there, without “sufficient reason”.
We are confronted with at least four types of metaphysics.
The tradition of the Upanishands and Spinoza recognises the Absolute as the foundation of reality but denies the transcendence and creative freedom of the Absolute.
Judeo/Christian acknowledges the Absolute as the ground and cause of objective reality but conceives of the Absolute as a benevolent and personal being.
The third denies the Absolute entirely, maintaining that we must be content with our knowledge of the contingent.
Fourthly - pantheism. Pantheistic metaphysics can be refuted if the witness and teaching of objective experience is accepted and taken seriously. Pantheism is based upon nothing ascertainable or verifiable.
Reality it seems is incapable of accounting for its own existence, structure, development and beauty, and because nothing in this world can account for its own existence, birth or structure, does it then follow that there is something or someone that is responsible for this existence, structure, or evolution.
However, any argument which shuns the very ideas of an absolute foundation of sensible reality is difficult to vanquish. The whole question of human reason is in question. Can human reason go all the way in its demand for intelligibility? Must it abandon the quest for an absolute foundation, which Leibnitz called “sufficient reason”? Must it limit itself to ascertainment of the fact of perceptible reality, structure, evolution and splendour, and make no attempt to seek intelligible ground and cause of that reality? Is this quest for ultimate intelligibility of the world and how it organises itself, eg: ID, the ultimate illusion?
Posted by SAS, Friday, 23 September 2005 3:31:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If there be a god or supernatural spiritual self,it is as illusive as quick silver.We have the reality of survival of the fittest.It was human intelligence and technology that freed us from the shackles of mere hunters and gatherers.This gave birth to our modern civilisation of more time to learn and contemplate our navels.
Without this technology we would not have the time to reach our present stage of consciousness.We therefore cannot have notions of spirituality without the mechanisms of capitalist wealth creation that provides time for such indulgences.

As I've alluded to previously,if we knew for certain about our limited mortality or possible eternal immortality,there would be no point to living,since the answer would pose no challenge for us to confront life's contradictions and injustices.

The traditional religions have to evolve beyond the dogma of their limited scriptures in the light of both scientific discovery and the insight of the great philosophers.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 24 September 2005 2:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those in favour of ID should understand fully what it is they are attempting to prove. A great place to start (and for anyone else who is a seeker of knowledge) is at National Geographic's website. There is a wonderful explanation of Human evolution and also the opportunity to participate in the Genographic Project which is mapping DNA to determine our ancestry.

http://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

No one has to compromise their beliefs by participating and you never know you may just learn something.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 24 September 2005 9:02:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to say that, at the very least, this thread has prompted me to investigate ID more fully. After a fairly robust read around, I'm pleased to report that:

* "Intelligent Design" is a moderately sophisticated attempt to reframe "Creation Science" in more palatable terms, following the latter's demolition in various American courts in the early 90s.

* Brendan Nelson has been badly suckered in his approval of an ID video. May it come back to haunt him in years to come... ;)

For a very interesting (and dare I say it - cool) discussion of this topic, check out this podcast:

"The Skeptic Tank - Intelligent Design plus some Bad Astronomy - Richard Saunders, Eugenie C Scott, Phil Plait " at

http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/

It's aimed at a young audience, but I daresay most participants in this discussion could get something from it! I did :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Sunday, 25 September 2005 9:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 25 September 2005 10:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!"

Philo, please. Capital letters are very poor form, akin to shouting loudly in the ear of the person you are arguing with.

Let me take you back to a piece of your own writing earlier in this thread.

>>"The multiplicity of gods was debunked 4,000 years ago as it was perceived all events [I say all events] were under one unifying cohesion except man who seemed in rebellion against the best design and practise of nature and relationships. Since the universe had one unified state where all behaviour of planets, known activity on earth, and processes of life were coordinated, or unified - hence the conclusion there was but one God over all and in all."<<

There's no evidence of an open mind here, Philo. You have selected your view, and are sticking with it... which is just fine with me. I do object though to people who shout at others for doing precisely the same.

You go on in the same vein:

>>"If present matter happened by a multiple series of unrelated accidental events, it is natural that all these things would be on conflicing courses and chaos would be the nature of design. Though chaos is present it does not interfere with the cordinated design of life. Where there is life there are cycles of maintenance and decay operating that identify a unity. The unity gives notion to the singleness of design of life in the universe. That One God gave life its character and design.<<

Categoric. Convinced. Closed mind. There's more.

>>"The resurrection of Jesus was a physical event that involved his own human body. Jesus said after his resurrection that he had flesh and bone; that he was not a spirit... [t]here had been no essential change to his body except that he had regained its normal functions. The miracle of change was his spirits ascention to heaven 40 days after his resurrection."<<

It doesn't matter to me that you believe this stuff, Philo, but it does annoy me when you shout "ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!" at folk who disagree with your views.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 26 September 2005 3:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Pericles - and what's more, Philo's textual "yell" is all the more inappropriate because it was in response to a statement by me saying that reading this thread has caused me to read around quite widely about "ID" - hardly evidence of a closed mind.

If Philo had bothered listening to the podcast I mentioned, he would possibly have opened his own rather narrow view of the world just a little.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 26 September 2005 4:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debates about the resurrection of Jesus are endless. There are roughly 1200 “mainline” Christian churches and anything between 20,000 to 32,000 Christian sects in the world today. To try to come to some consensus amongst that assemblage about many theological problems presented to us in the New Testament is an exercise in folly. The greatest hindrance to rational theological debate is the true believer syndrome and self-deception.
True-believer syndrome is an expression used to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterised by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Self-deception is the process of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid or provably unsustainable such as the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Self-deception is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves.
Self-deception is not necessarily a weakness of will, but may be a matter of ignorance, laziness, or cognitive incompetence. However, self-deception may not always be a flaw and may even be beneficial at times. If we were too brutally honest and objective about our own abilities, about life in general, and about our religious predilections in particular, we might become debilitated by depression.
Christians are challenged, “To search out the truth” and in doing so they can also run the risk of becoming debilitated and depressed about the results, which may not accord with their previously held beliefs. “Search out the truth” about the New Testament’s varying affirmations about the resurrection and doubtless there will be many who will resist further searching because they already know the “truth” from the “infallible”, “inerrant” New Testament. Ah, to be so convinced!
John S. Spong retired Bishop of New Jersey: “A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion”.
George Cary, former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury: “While we can be absolutely sure that Jesus lived and that he was certainly crucified on the cross, we cannot with the same certainty say that we know he was raised by God from the dead”
Posted by SAS, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 10:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Intelligent design is definitely scientific

Dr Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis-Australia, said that ‘intelligent design’ is definitely a scientific concept.

‘It uses exactly the same scientific criteria to detect design in living things as scientists use to recognize design in other disciplines: in forensic science, in archaeology, and in NASA’s search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, for example.’

‘I wouldn’t be surprised if the crude efforts by some to stifle debate backfire’, Dr Wieland said. ‘Australians know censorship when they see it.’

Dr Wieland considers that the opponents of intelligent design are mostly not using scientific arguments but emotional ones.

‘I find it amusing that they are even using theological arguments when they point to a particular structure and say, “God wouldn’t have designed it that way,”’ Dr Wieland said. ‘It is becoming clear that some people want the debate quashed because it leads places they don’t want to go. It contradicts their belief system.’

According to Wieland, intelligent design is not connected to any particular religion. ‘It is not a Christian movement and its advocates would not claim it to be. In fact, ideas promoted by some ID leaders contradict biblical teaching (our full position statement on ID can be found at www.answersingenesis.org/idm). Intelligent design deals only with the narrow question of identifying design in living things.’

Wieland thinks intelligent design is an important aspect of the creation/evolution issue, one that has been used by creation ministries for years. ‘But it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, such as why we have disease, suffering, death and extinction.’

‘Intelligent design does not provide an alternative history to evolution so it has no framework for the sciences that deal with history, such as geology, cosmology and evolutionary biology,’ Dr Wieland said. ‘But just because an approach does not address every question people ask does not mean it should be rejected. The matter definitely needs to be debated, and it is great to see the way in which this controversy has raised awareness of the issues.’

Further information: Dr Carl Wieland 0418 724 936
Posted by Dave Powell, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 3:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is the thing that really surprises me about all of this, it seems to me that I have more faith than the creationists. If there is a creator, I have no problem seeing them creating something as beautiful and complex as evolution. I also don’t have a problem conceiving that while the system appears to be "random", it may actually be driving towards some goal that is outside my comprehension. Basically I figure that if there is a god, s/he is significantly smarter than I am, and is likely to have plans that span time periods that I can’t even start to get my head around.

Now this does preclude the whole seven days, bible as literal word of god thing so I guess I am not throwing that much of a bone to the strict creationists. But you would have to wonder, given all the evidence stacking up about the age of the earth (4.8 billion-ish years) and the extent of the fossil record, isn’t it time to contemplate the possibility that mankind may have written some of the details down wrong, or copied something incorrectly SOMEHWERE along the way?

The Old Testament was written approximately 2,000 - 6,000 years ago during the end of the Stone Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age. At the time most people lived in mud huts, a large community was a couple of thousand people, the world view was that the planet was flat, people lived to about 30 years old and the hight of technology was the donkey and a stone axe.

If you were a loving, caring god how would YOU explain relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology to those people - and their donkey? Start with something simple I’d say. I mean there is all that fossil evidence, the finches on the Galapagos Islands and the like. You created mankind as a pretty bright bunch, so they‘ll figure out that you wrote things in many places (like the rocks) and in many ways (like interstellar radio waves).

I guess I just have more faith than the ID folks.
Posted by BraveCreature, Monday, 5 December 2005 12:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravecreature - wonderful moniker - inspiring post. I have been thinking the same thing all along and wonder why those who claim they believe in God can't get their head around the idea that evolution, the solar system, the universe and so on are just all a part of the grand design.

I have always found the god described in religious texts to be too narrow and limiting a being.

So, if there is a great creator, s/he is so far beyond our comprehension as to be almost negligible. The way I see it is to simply try to aspire to be the best you can be - oh, and live and let live.

Thank you.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 5 December 2005 1:33:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point Scout to think about: "the solar system, the universe and so on are just all a part of the grand design." Exactly!
Posted by Philo, Monday, 5 December 2005 8:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing I failed to mention (that 350 word limit got me) is that I am firmly agnostic. I can't know the truth, its too big and complex, so I dont worry myself about what it might be. I just try and do my best in the here and now.

I also cheated a bit, since that post was a cut down version of a longer one on my blog - http://www.bravecreatures.com/blog

Thanks for the posative comments by the way, much appreciated,

R
Posted by BraveCreature, Monday, 5 December 2005 9:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo
If there is a why to life, the universe and everything it is on so vast a scale as to be inconceivable.

Consider the vastness of interstellar space - planet Earth is but a speck of dust.

We are a result of millenia of evolution - our eyes evolved - the story is in the rocks, the pattern in the fossils left behind.

We have evolved intellectually too. We no longer make sacrifices to appease gods or spirits.

We mature and no longer believe in the tooth fairy or santa clause. Nor do we believe in virgin births - technically impossible and immature to think that there is an interventionist god.

There may well be a grand scale plan to the whole damn thing. But whether or not you are a christian or I am a heathen will not make a jot of difference in the overall scheme of things.

All we can do is try to live with compassion and love for others - I don't need a bible to do that.

BraveCreature - I checked out your blog - I especially agree with your statement:

"So here is the thing that I don’t get. As much as I am very comfortable with the theory of evolution, I don’t see any particular conflict between it and the existence of a creating deity. As far as I can see, if a creator can go "poof" and there is a universe, they could just as easily go "poof" and an evolutionary system could be established."

Have been thinking along these lines for a long time.

The reason many christians have difficulty with this idea is that it is difficult to fit in Jesus as the son of god and a personal deity if they accept evolution. I think this is why, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, they have come up with ID as a sort of mutant 'ism to account for many (nowhere near all) scientific discoveries.

There may well be a grand deity - just that it/she/he isn't quite like the bible tells us so.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All we can do is try to live with compassion and love for others"
Why? It doesn't necessarily further the evolutionary process.

And why do we assume that we have such an authority on what is and what isn't truth? If we argue that there is no knowable God (He/She/It/They is/are too big to grasp our heads around OR doesn't exist) then we have no foundation to say that anything we believe is correct. E.g. we could have evolved the wrong way, and not know about it. Thus everything we believe becomes relative and has no REAL meaning.

I think its admirable that you try to live with compassion and love for others. Why, I'm not sure. Because if we are just biological processes, free to invent our own sense of spirituality or lack thereof, it doesn't really matter what we think is true or good, in the end.

However, it seems to be, that at this point of time, Australians have decided that compassion and love are the moral standards to which we all might aspire (influenced by religion and/or our own innate sense of what's right and wrong, put there/evolved for whatever reason, I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any harm in it).

I salute everybody in this post who has chosen to be loving and compassionate. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like the Intelligent Design idea. It seems a lot of people immediately get the idea that it is simply an apologetic version of creationism and as such it is regarded as an opposing alternative to evolution. I think this is true in some people's minds. But I don't think evolution and intelligent design are antipathetic.

I think it's clear from the fossil record that life forms have come and gone in times gone by. What is not so clear is why and how. While natural selection and mutation are strong suspects as causative factors, there is evidence for and against.

But other factors may exist. I personally have marvelled that in all the physical universe, there appears to be only one factor that routinely violates the law of entropy. That's life. Only life assembles matter and energy into ordered forms. The physical universe has a certain degree of structure and order, particularly in low level crystalline structures. But in general, all these structures are headed toward a less ordered or energetic existence over time.

When I was young, I used to think carnivores and herbivores were enemies. Later I found out that they depend on each other for their survival in a balance that is said to be "delicate" by those who think such balances occur purely by chance. However they actually complementary and necessary in each other's continued survival.

There is large amounts of evidence that perhaps there is some kind of driving force or intelligence behind evolution. Insects for example, with acquired DDT resistance turning up in isolated countries far away from DDT usage. At the very least, there are significant unanswered questions.

None of these questions will get serious attention I fear as long as this subject has been hijacked by the black and white, faith-based thinking of both Creationists and Evolutionists.
Posted by steve42, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 5:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy