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 > A parent’s perspective on intelligent design > Comments

A parent’s perspective on intelligent design : Comments

By Jane Caro, published 10/11/2005

Jane Caro argues children should learn the difference between faith and reason: intelligent design and the theory of evolution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Nice piece, Jane, clear and simple. Only one comment. It was Karl Popper who argued that 'falsification', not 'verification', is the true scientific process. That is, when you have a 'eureka' moment, and think you're on to something really important, what you ought to do is to try and knock down your hypothesis. Really good scientists (indeed, really good researchers of any kind) do their best to do this. But the power of what is already 'known' is strong: witness the late success of the medical scientists who showed that bacteria were deeply associated with ulcers. Yes, they got the Nobel for it, but getting on for thirty years later. In the beginning they were ridiculed. Current wisdom always has a lot of defensive barriers around it, if only because, as you say, it can be very hard really to falsify a proposition. That is why all knowledge is 'contingent' — we can never be sure that future discoveries will not falsify what we currently think to be true.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:47:17 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
Exactly Don,
the 'ridicule' you speak of is a frequent characteristic of this forum. It manifests usually from those who prefer not to engage with 'issues' but who delight in name calling to prop up an entrenched uninformed position.

USA BREAKING NEWS.
The news today reported on how Kansas had thrown out 'ID' as a curriculum item, BUT...and it's a crucial but, which is pretty much the best we ID proponents would ever hope to achieve, and that is that they will now be teaching 'The Controversy'.. AT LAST.....

PHILOSOPHY/IMPLICATIONS
I would add just one point to still hope for, that they will also teach the philosophical/moral ramifications of an 'atheistic' and a 'Creation' position.

A little bit of pre-suppositional apologetics would also not go astray in that debate.

EGO AT THE ROOT
The first thing which comes to my mind when considering why Scientists might ridicule or reject a 'new' piece of research or anything contra the prevailing orthodoxy, is that 'reputations', lifetimes spent in particular directions, awards.. honours.. could all be brought to nothing if the 'new' idea is accepted.

The late and begrudging recognition of the Ulcer Bateria illustrates grandly how much EGO (and therefore vested self interest) lies at the root of much 'objective' science.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...... " Gen 1.1
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:16:23 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
Jane draws a very sharp line between faith and science, then by saying that ID's proponents "have faith in it" implies that it is divorced from science and thereby relegated to the scripture class.

If we bring that argument down from the rhetorical stratosphere, I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. I believe ID proponents are arguing for something like the following -

* In a biology discussion of how blood-clotting functions, the teacher points out that there appears to be an irreducable complexity in its components, meaning it is hard for evolution to say how this was produced by phased mutation. They then point out that one logical possibility is that blood-clotting was created in-place. There is no requirement to open a bible or teach Christian tenets. It's simply a statement that alongside the theory of evolution is a theory that makes a competing claim.

Jane says "What I want my children to learn in science class is how to assess evidence dispassionately." If that is true, then surely in that classroom discussion we don't want our teachers censoring the discussion simply because the theory that does have an answer is put forward by people mostly of faith. If the teacher said "evolution doesn't currently have an explanation for this, and there are other theories that do, but they're not widely accepted so we're not going to discuss them" - we'd certainly accuse them of letting their "faith" in evolution override good science.

p.s. Before anyone responds with a scientific answer to the blood-clotting example, please remember that Jane was arguing that ID is all faith and no science, so the fact that we *could* respond with scientific arguments shows that ID does raise *some* scientific points. Which says that, scientifically, we can't immediately dismiss it and it may be worth considering (in some form) a useful classroom discussion
Posted by Nesgar, Thursday, 10 November 2005 1:31:31 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
Yes indeed, Jane Caro - "if it doesn't understand such a fundamental element" (difference between faith and reason) "in education - should it qualify as a school?"
I consider that such "schools" don't satisfy the requirements for a school child's attendance for compulsory education; let alone qualify for government funding for private schools.
But, it is not enough to say "What I want my children to learn in science class is how to assess evidence dispassionately. I want them to learn, not just the importance of what we know and what we don't know, but the difference. In fact, I want them to learn and appreciate the difference between faith and reason." There is that indeed, but there is more, much more.
It has to do with development of an understanding of the world of which we are a component: how we fit into it; the jigsaw of interdependence, the interplay, between living entities. The understanding that humanity is not an island unto itself, but dependent upon an interconnected web with other creatures. Such understanding develops only with the curiosity fostered by the pleasure engendered from ever-questioning science. Both the individual and society are enriched by it.
Leave the barren discussion of relative purity in moral matters outside, in its usual place, the battlefield. I, from the non-combatant sidelines, rate the moral history of the Taoists, or of the Buddhists, as having a record far superior in such matters to any of the many sects of bloody-minded Christians.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:06:42 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
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...... " Gen 1.1

boaz, its an interesting point that the 11 parents who brought the case to dissmiss the teaching of id at dover high also hold this simple statement to be true, and they made a very deliberate decision that all the expert witnesses argueing in favour of evolution were also christian (richard dawkins would probably done more harm than good). it became very hard for the school councilors and their witnesses to argue that evolution was anti-faith when everyone on the other side were devout conservative christians. the conflict between evolution and religious belief is only imagined by people who fear the dimminishing influence of their faith on society.

on a personal note, my father, who holds a phd in physics (and therefore has a deep understanding of the pricipals of the scientific method), also holds gen 1.1 to be true. for him, like i would suggest the majority of scientists would hold a religious faith, see no conflict between evolution and religion. futhermore he and a number of his colleauges have formed a lose group to ensure that id is never taught as an alternative scientific theory. id is, as he put it, an insult both to the intellectual progress of humanity and to the divinity of god the creator.

he understands the idea of god establishing the physical laws of our universe which gave rise to life's common ancestor as an elegant and profound concept of creation. compare this to the messy interventions (and failures) of a godthing specificaly mucking around with butterfly wings and eye lenses, the very idea smacks of a primitive (pagan anyone?) conception of god.

anyway, i would mention id in science class, not as an alternative theory, but in the same way that we studied the failure of lysenko's lamarkianism in russia, as a lesson in the dangers of the distortion of scientific principlas and evidence by ideology.
Posted by its not easy being, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:34:21 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
INEB
yes, by and large that is my very point.

There is not a lot of conflict between Genesis 1:1 and science.
The conflict begins usually after that :)
When Genesis outlines the 'days' etc..usually the divergence begins.

For me, I'm not particularly fussed if 'Creation' is not taught in Science classes....AS LONG as.... they don't teach an equally speculative theory of 'origins' as 'fact'.

But its like feminism, they began with 'we want equality', and as things started to even out in terms of pay etc, they suddenly realized they were losing relevance, (the hard core/leadership) so.. quick answer.. 'jump to the next level' etc to the point where in Sweden, a political party called 'Feminist Initiative' got up with an initial 28% or thereabouts support. But when they made their theme song for one of their conferences "F**k men, who needs them" their support dwindled, but it shows the 'direction' for relevance challenged ideologues.

The same applies for the Creation/Evolution scene. Many people build their lives and reputations on particular 'directions' in science.

Bottom line, teach 'the controversy' in Civics/Philosophy classes :)
Leave 'real' science to the science classroom. Though, I don't see any problem with at least referring to the various schools of thought in Science classes when confronting 'irreducable complexity' etc. But if they 'laughed' off the idea of Creation and 'seriously supported' the idea of 'origins from primordial slime' I would take serious issue with them and insist they also referred to the likelihood of a fully functional 747 emerging from a junkyard explosion..'if given enough time' :)
cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 November 2005 4:34:48 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
Science for Science class and ID is not Science.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 11 November 2005 9:42:00 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
Hear Hear, Kenny. ID is not scientific. It is anti-intellectualism to the extreme.

This is not an either/or debate, where for ID to be plausible eveolution needs to be disproved. Evolutionary theory is coherent, tangible, and refutable. The David Boaz's of this world are welcome to disprove any element of it.

One can pick holes in eveolutionary theory - it is in these holes that I.D. lives. It is a proposition, not a theory, and barring the second coming will remain so. It is controversial only because it is being suggested it belongs in a science classroom rather than a philosophy or religious classroom.

The author of this article said it quite well - "What I want my children to learn is how to assess evidence dispassionately. I want them to learn and appreciate the difference between faith and reason."

If only adults did the same.
Posted by bennie, Friday, 11 November 2005 11:27:41 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
2 BENNIE and KENNY

"The Gang of Two" :)

I don't think you guys read my post... did u ?

You guys are criticizing a position I was NOT espousing..

Let me RE-state it for the benefit of you 2. This time I'll use 'numbers' so you cannot get it wrong :)

1/ TEACH EVOLUTION (i.e. adapatation, natural selection)in science classes.

2/ DO NOT teach that the world or Humans 'originated' through 'evolution' (such a position is faith based and speculative)
in science classes unless ALL theories are equally mentioned.

3/ TEACH the "Controversy" of origins in Philosophy/Civics classes along with the moral ramifications of each position.

Got it now ? now go ahead and talk about the 'Boaz's' of this world in terms of what they ACTUALLY said.. grrr

Blessings
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 November 2005 12:52:22 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
It seems that people such as the author are not aware that their 'reason' is based in faith.

Faith and reason are not different ways of knowing or different sides of the same coin or mutually exclusive.

Faith is the foundation of all reason, as reasoning is impossible without faith.

So to argue that science is reason/provable as opposed to faith is to miss the point that science itself is based on faith.
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 11 November 2005 1:06:38 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
With respect, I was down at the shopping centre the other day walking back to my car with a carton, when I heard a tremendous, thunderous roar. My eyes begat a wonderous site, a GTHO Ford Falcon. It was like two inches off the ground and had the wide tyres, paint job, had the lot. My heart pounded, my arms went all goose bumply. It crawled around the shopping centre, its engine thumping, and get this, it had a locked diff - so its tyres squealled as it slowly weaved its way around the shopping centre.
I noticed all the men stopped in their tracks, jaws dropped, young boys staring in awe - their skateboard momentarily forgotten, the women looking puzzled and annoyed. FORD GTHO FALCON with 351 cubic inches of pure grunt - now that is Intelligent Design (except for the brakes) and to prove it on the back window was the sticker "Praise the Ford".
I could swear I heard a hushed "amen" among the men - except for, of course, the usual suspect whose Evil Holden was doing just that "jus' holden' together". As he wrestled with the jarred door of his Evil Beast, he mumbled something like "F**ked On Race Day" or "Found On Rubbish Dump" - his toothless grin and bogan haircut suggesting that his blasphemy had not gone unpunished in the past. "Peuter" quickly retreated into his car and slammed the door (four times) and drove off giving us all the Evil Finger.
I might add here that the driver of the Ford also gave us the finger - the Godly finger (my local Constable Care doesn't accept this premise by the way) - the outstretched thumb symbolising the Father, the next two outstretched fingers the Son and the Holy Spirit and the two curled fingers the two Natures of Christ. So there - evidence that I saw God driving a Ford.

Everybody knows God drives a Ford - don't they? Evil blasphamous people drive Holdens. I won't even mention the consummate evil of other brands that go against God's Ideal Vehicle.
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 11 November 2005 1:09:22 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
i allways thought god drives a Cobra.

http://www.wallpaper.net.au/wallpaper/automotive/Shelby%20Cobra%20Concept%202004%20-%201024x768.jpg
Posted by its not easy being, Friday, 11 November 2005 1:21:58 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
hi again David,

You're the epitome of grace under pressure. Point taken, but I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here.

Please note - I.D. is not a theory. You are being disingenuous to call it such.

Scientists are not debating between themselves the validity or otherwise of the theory of evolution. There is no controversy in in the scientific world regards the development over time of the traits of today's living creatures - size, number of appendages, colour etc.

That human beings originated via evolution is the ONLY theory supported by observation and evaluation of our surrounds. This is the dispassionate view. Human beings have so many commonalities with what are called our close relatives, and a number of features that in the absence of divine intervention can only be interpreted as vestiges of an earlier form. Tailbones. Appendices. Hairy bodies. Instinct for sex and survival. Until I.D. can suggest a MORE credible scenario for these it won't be taken seriously. Evolutionary theory theory fits. Beautifully. Simply. Elegantly. Occam's razor. A religious dimension simply is not required, and I believe this is what motivates you.

I.D. needs to stand on its own feet rather than rest on spurious doubts generated by slick marketing. Again, the only controversy here is that it is being taken seriously by educationists.

You're right in saying it's a matter of faith, though in scientific terms the basis of evolutionary theory is referred to as 'overwhelming evidence'. It can't be proven, as you say. The big bang can't be proven either, but no-one with a basic understanding of science takes on face value alone the suggestion that genesis is factual
Posted by bennie, Friday, 11 November 2005 4:06:26 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 this monkeying around in the family tree by the intelligent designers might give them pleasure; but it will make no difference whatever to our family tree.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 11 November 2005 7:30:57 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
Regarding faith ... There seem to me to be two kinds of faith. The first is blind faith, believing what you have heard or read with no supporting evidence in your own experience. The "only believe, don't question" kind of faith, which in my view does not promote spiritual development and may well be harmful.

The second is where you have faith because your experience supports and validates whatever you have faith in. For example, I have faith in my teacher, S N Goenka, and what he teaches - the Buddha Dhamma, Vipassana - because (1) I have experienced the benefits which he suggests the practice of Vipassana would bring (as far as my modest debvelopment permits); (2) because he epitomises the love, compassion, wisdom and selfishness which the practice is designed to develop; (3) because the practice is logical and rational, with theory and practice going hand in hand; and (4) because everything Goenka has said which I have been able to test for myself has been true. This experience-based faith helps you to work with confidence, it fosters spiritual development. It's more akin to science than it is to blind faith.

In respect of educating my own children, I have taught them to think for themselves, to be open and curious. I haven't pushed Vipassana or the Buddha's teaching, the children have my wife and I as examples and seem to accept and practice our moral code because they can compare the results in terms of their parents and others of various/no beliefs/practices (and one went to a Christian high school). I don't think having ID in the classroom would have helped them, as uni students they observe the debate and reject ID.

Too many public schools seem to push a biased agenda, let's aim at encouraging a joy in learning and a critical ability without imposing views on children. I can't see where ID fits in to that.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 11 November 2005 8:00:06 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
sorry, "selflessness", not "selfishness"
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 11 November 2005 8:01:05 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
Alan Grey,
I have to agree with your position. I will not accept anything merely by faith that I do not consider reasonable or closest to the facts. Same with science theory one believes what is most likely the facts. There is no dichotomy between faith and reason. Those that dismiss ideas with emotive language show they will not evaluate it a possibility before dismissing it as unreasonable.

Anyone involved in developing a business realises that initially it is faith that grows the business. Unless you believe in the idea no one else will either, yet there is no cold evidence to demonstrate that the business is a success. Though faith believes that the business is a good proposition because all the reasons are there for it to succeed. Yet there is not factual evidence of its success.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 11 November 2005 8:16:36 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
rancitas, I don't believe you saw God driving the GTHO, the designer rarely drives what he designs, to lay to rest a myth, concerning Holden drivers, I drive a Holden, and am happy with my car, I have always been a Holden man, however, in my humble opinion, the only vehicle that comes close to a Ford Falcon GTHO Phase 3, is a GTS Monaro of the same year. Note I said "close", the HO is my favourite of all time I don't quite know how you managed to get the conversation on to classic cars from evelution, v ID but you bought back a lot of happy memories for me, thank you! back to the subject, I am a Christian, who has an open mind, and I believe both ideas should be put to children, for them to make up their own minds, I know what I believe, but religion to me is a personal choice, not to be pushed on to others, but presented along with other ideas, for individuals to come to their own conclusions, which won't happen, if they are ignorant of all options, thus ID should have a place in school in my opinion, but neither should be taught as fact, and ID may be better suited to RE than science class.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 12 November 2005 1:12:59 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
Shonga... on a trivial note :)

You have yet to drive a Falcon XR6 Turbo 'Typhoon'... more torque than a $380k V10 Masserati... I test drove one the other week, my GOODness... they absolutely flyyyyyyy... Not that I'm in the position to buyone.. I have a Commodore.. 96 VS. I haven't compared the Pwr/Weight Ratio with a GTHOPhaseIII or a GTS, but I know it was pretty good.

On ID.. and faith etc.. I've said all I can on that.
Cheers and best wishes to all.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 12 November 2005 7:24:33 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
I don't know what the fuss is. If you read the directive from the Kansas Education Board is says that it can mention Intelligent when teaching evolution in science class. Why is that a problem? If you are gullible enough to accept ID without any scientific proof then do so at your own peril. Stop giving ID such coverage...it is purely a fad. Like yoyos.
Posted by Chris Devir, Saturday, 12 November 2005 11:08:27 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 please don't take it the wrong way, but, the Falcon XR6 you test drove, that fleeeeew! The GTHO PH3, is my favourite of all time because it not only flew, not that I ever owned one, but because it had a certain presence about it, as did a 350 GTS Monaro, which I was lucky enough to have a ride in 30 years ago. However the sound of a HO just idleing down the street, used to put shivers up my back, and if the car you drove last week was fast, you would have been test driving on your own, as far as I was concerned, as speed and acceleration now are things I no longer have the nerve for, but I hope you enjoyed youself mate, I have a VN commodore 91' and it is plenty fast enough for me. Oh!, by the way with the cost of petrol these days, I have installed two products, to save money on petrol costs, they are 1. Hyclone {don't know if you have heard of them} and 2. a Fitch fuel catalyst, and they pay for themselves in 12 months, the initial outlay was $600.00, and I have had mine for roughly 18 months, so if anyone is interested in spending to save, I can recomend these products from experience, all the best David.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 12 November 2005 3:39:05 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
I.D. creates a fuss because it stands apart from all other school curricula. Most modern democracies are secular, uncomfortable with recognising supernaturalism outside religious or philosophical environments. Intelligent Design has only one logical conclusion - the existence of a creator - and is antithetical to the basic scientific process. It makes no predictions, does not inform the past, is built upon premise alone and cannot be refuted.

A key argument used by proponents of I.D. is the suggestion some bodily features, such as the structure of the human eye or cell, possesses "irreducible complexity". The organ seems to have had no intermediate stage or function in the more primitive animals from which we supposedly evolved, therefore must have been designed when man was created. Q.E.D., there exists a designer. This is as far as I.D. can go. It draws a line beneath what is known and designates the remainder as of divine origin, using the same reasoning ancient civilisations used when worshipping a rain god. Teaching this in a science class is akin to astronomy students evaluating whether Capricorn and Pisces are in fact compatible.

The article discusses whether children should be able to determine the difference between faith and reaon. I'm all for it, but not in an environment where a stab in the dark even gets a guernsey, much less equal billing with a massive and coherent body of credible evidence to the contrary
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 12 November 2005 4:03:43 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
Intelligent Design is inferred from empirical evidence in nature, not deduced from scripture or religious doctrines. It's not a matter of faith, but rather a logical inference based on biological evidence.

On the issue of falsifiability:

"Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

As the above article goes on to explain, Darwinian theory cannot be falsified as the old "we don't know enough yet" argument is employed in the face of fundamental gaps. Gaps which evolution is simply incapable of bridging.

To say that evolution doesn't have problems is an argument out of either ignorance or mendaciousness. The mere collapse of gradualism in the face of the fossil record indicates that not all is well. And that's without taking into account ID critiques of supposed evolutionary mechanisms (or lack thereof).
Posted by Oligarch, Sunday, 13 November 2005 6:31:58 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
The author makes the assumption very early on that since evolutionary theory is not thorough, a Darwinian account of man's emergence is less credible than a supernatural one. He witnesses the study of an exotic organism's behavour to the limit of scientific ability, then claims the unknown for himself. Is this the measure of I.D.?

Furthermore "...we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history."

He describes a designer that can't be defined, effecting changes he can't say where, using a method that can't be explained.

A natural theory of evolution, gaps and all, doesn't take this road, and its adherence to the scientific method hobbles its ability to convince skeptics evolutionary theory is rational. Is it the sole genesis of our living planet? Or can we have our heads in the clouds and our roots in the trees at the same time?

Take heart, dear readers. "Let's be clear that design can accommodate all the results of Darwinism. Intelligent design does not repudiate the Darwinian mechanism. It merely assigns it a lower status than Darwinism does."
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 13 November 2005 7:59:57 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
Posted Oligarch, 13 November
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

An extract from:
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott
William A. Dembski

“Challenging me in American Outlook biologist Alex Duncan remarked: "A scientific theory makes predictions about the world around us, and enables us to ask and answer meaningful questions. For example, we might pose the question 'why do polar bears have fur, while penguins have feathers, given the similar nature of their environments?' Evolution provides an answer to this question. The only answer creationism (or intelligent design) provides is 'because God made them that way.'" Actually, evolution, whether Darwinian or otherwise, makes no predictions about there being bears or birds at all or for that matter bears having fur and birds having feathers. Once bears or birds are on the scene, they need to adapt to their environment or die. Intelligent design can accommodate plenty of evolutionary change and allows for natural selection to act as a conservative force to keep organisms adapted to their environments. Contrary to Duncan's remark, intelligent design does not push off all explanation to the inscrutable will of God. On the other hand, intelligent design utterly rejects natural selection as a creative force capable of bringing about the specified complexity we see in organisms.
It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. Insofar as it offers predictions, they are either extremely general, concerning the broad sweep of natural history and in that respect quite questionable (Why else would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?); and when the predictions are not extremely general they are extremely specific and picayune, dealing with small-scale adaptive changes. Newton was able to predict the path that a planet traces out. Darwin's disciples can neither predict nor retrodict the pathways that organisms trace out in the course of natural history.”

Evolution isn’t a predictable science it’s supposed history of a genome. Evolutionists view nature being the driving power as though nature has intelligent survival direction but then deny it’s driving-power has intelligent design.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 13 November 2005 8:30:11 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
Darwinian theory can make few predictions due to the number of forces at work, from naturally occuring nuclear radiation to mass extinction events. The obvious ones such as climate change and random mutation are barely understood. The only prediction it can make is that it will continue to operate.

'Punctuated equilibria' did take place and evolutionism cannot explain why. Gaps do exist in the fossil record. While none of what does exist contradicts current theory, the circle is not complete. Is this licence to invoke an all-encompassing overseer?

"Evolutionists view nature being the driving power as though nature has intelligent survival direction but then deny it’s driving-power has intelligent design." This interpretation still begs the question whether intelligence is intrinsic, not a step evolution takes.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 13 November 2005 9:38:00 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
Question for the ID proponents.

Why are you trying to compete with science? That is what you are doing. Science is not incompatible with faith. Why cloud science with supernatural belief? We need our children to grow up with good mathematical and logical skills - ID clouds over rational exploration of the natural world.

Teach ID as a part of religious studies but to compete with science is like asking a spirit to compete with a rock. One is imagination or belief the other is very real and can be measured.

This debate is really pointless. Jane Caro has expressed the issue so succinctly I wonder why anyone has a problem with her argument.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 14 November 2005 8:11:40 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 no problem with teaching ID in schools - the more information people have the better they can make decisions. But I would suggest it be taught in the true spirit of Intelligent Design; by definition there's no way to know so maybe make it a quick twenty minute lesson and give a few examples of the various different types of ID:

- Christian Creationism (God, http://www.vatican.va/)

- Muslim Creationism (Allah, http://www.iad.org/)

- Pastafarianism (His Noodly Greatness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

- Random posts on CHUD.COM (Apparently Vin Diesel punched God in the face thus creating the universe, http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79895, though this raises a host of chicken and egg type questions)

I would think this would in fact lead to a quite enlightening experience for most students, and the world would be a better place for it.

It amazes me that this argument is even happening in this day and age.
Posted by Cur, Monday, 14 November 2005 2:45:58 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
Evolutionary theory is incoherent, intangible and refutable and is definitely not scientific. Devolutionary theory is scientific. No evolving processes have been documented. All mutations are devolving. That is devolutionary processes - in that information is lost not gained. Natural selection is just that - natural selection.
Evolution and ID could both be relegated to the philosophy class.

Creationism should be in the science room. Flagellum is a beatiful example, the bombardier beetle is another, the eye another and 100's more abound. We can't prove creationism, but we know that a tornado in a junkyard will not create a computer or a jumbo or a an animal/human liver factory. Flowers, pollen, bees and seeds all come together in one complete package. Take any one thing out and the others have no way of surviving for 'millions of years' 'til the other steps come along.
And you think Creationism is faith? Try adding plain, logical common sense on to that. Of course we don't know how exactly it happened- but then it took many years to find out about electricity, magnets, radio-waves/frequencies, infra-red and ultra-violet, resonances of solids/liquids etc, mind work to move muscles to switch on electrical items through a computer. Such things were derided until proved absolutely. Perhaps Creations time for our understanding and knowledge, is nearly here also. Bluehills.
Posted by Bluehills, Monday, 14 November 2005 7:09:46 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
Intelligent design is simply fundamentalist christianity dressed up with a catchy spin phrase. It is just as deadly as fundamentalist islam.

All religions were created to explain to the masses what was not understandable at the current temporal period within the context of known "reasoning"

The ancients had a wind god, sun god, god of fertility,moon god etc.

As a consequence those within the ancient societies who created the mythology surrounding these deities accumulated enormous power and prestige within the societies.

Over time we essentially have one mystery to resolve how did life come into existence? Consequently we have the competition from organised religions whether it is Christianity, Islam, Hindu that tries to hold onto the power of historical mythologies and "rational" thought that by definition will alter and revolutionise the power structures within our society.

In the Christian world we had creation science which has led in some states in the US to a new dark ages, banning of certain teachings in schools, park rangers in national parks being banned from being able to tell visitors of the geological age of structures.

It has now gone out and got a new slogan intelligent design. The so called theory (it really is a fantasy) is based on inferred logical reasoning without any capacity for empirical evidence.

Darwinism has benefited from modern biological advances. It must be remembered that early evolutionary science was based on physical characteristics as a proxy of genetics. With DNA mapping it is now a more rigorous approach.

If intelligent design is true why does all earth lifeform have DNA as the replicating chemical, why doesn't the designer have a whole range of replicating chemical structures. Quite simply it falls down at the first building block.

Now we are not sure how the first strands of DNA came about, simply our knowledge has not advanced enough, there are a number of hypothesis. But ignorance should not be used to create more mythologies to warp the power structures within our society.
Posted by slasher, Monday, 14 November 2005 8:31:55 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
Jane says "What I want my children to learn in science class is how to assess evidence dispassionately." This must mean that e.g. they should be taught that (contemporary) science considers it a proven fact that there is no intelligent life on the Moon but that the question of existence of intelligent life in our universe, besides us, is open. So is the question of the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". I think Jane's children should be taught this difference between verified facts (as a mathematician I am very cautious with the word 'proven') and open questions. Rather than the difference between incommensurable notions of faith and reason. There are many varieties of what is called evolutionary theory and they have many scientifically expressible open questions. The existence of an Intelligent Designer is a question more of a "world-view" than of a scientific nature.

I believe one day science will find a convincing answer to the question of intelligent life in our universe (and existence would be easier to verify than non-existence). This is belief, not faith. Religious faith -- at least its Christian version -- is belief expressible in a logically coherent (though not self-evident) form PLUS Something else. This "Something else" has nothing to do with science and very little with reason, this "Something else" is part of what Pascal had in mind with his famous "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point."
Posted by George, Monday, 14 November 2005 10:37:20 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
(Comment continued) However, I also believe that science will never find a convincing answer to the question of the existence of an Intelligent Designer who drives the evolutionary process in our universe: the alternative of it being self-driven will always remain. Because if God exists in the way the three Judaistic religions interpret Him, He would hardly want to force his acceptance upon us. Namely, religious faith has also its moral aspect, so it must mean more than the acceptance of the existence of Alfa Centauri or the truthfulness of the Pythagoras Theorem.

So I think ID -- in the form presented by e.g. Dembski, not the naive creationists -- has only a negative scientific value by pointing to gaps in available theories. Trying to fill these gaps with pre-existing religious faith is not science. It is "faith seeking understanding" as put by Augustine and Anselm, which is a legitimate intellectual endeavour but it is not (natural) science. And it is also theologically dangerous because it threatens to see God reduced to the historically discredited "God of the gaps".
Posted by George, Monday, 14 November 2005 10:38:42 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
I see the NSW Greens are now calling for funding to be cut from schools who teach ID as science.
There is nothing wrong with this, as long as the same standards apply to teaching global warming mythology in the science class as well.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 9:14:57 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
It was clear stated in the USA that “intellectual design” was one of wordly fictions used to substitute known passages in a book on creation published in 1989 in order to bypass a government ban impost on teaching biblical stories in American schools.

In a place where race and caste are the most to be employed (read: mateship) no schooling essential at all.

Why not to teach how to clean toilets (there is a college in Singapore already) rather than of universe and engineering? It is more practical while “negotiating” further agreements with employers if any.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:41:03 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
When a scientist conducts a experiement he has faith that test tubes' size is marked on the side is indeed fact. He or she has faith that the chemicals are as marked - so faith is a part of science. However, these things can be tested. Science is mostly reason and relating to the testable.
We have faith in our friends and partners. We have faith in our fellow citizens. These things are tested over the years and depending on the things that happen in our lives we can determine who are the fair dinkum ones. It is what is "fair dinkum" that must remain the highest of ideals and it is here that we often need guidance. This is where religion and reason comes into it in the ability to test and determine if the processes are producing true happiness.
Religions can only be known by the fruits that they produce and how strongly they hold to the postives. Science-based enquiry can be helpful here as well.
Incidently, is it just me or is there something ironic and thus funny in the way certain churches are evolving in their thinking to keep the God industry viable. These same churches often poo, poo post-modernist thinking and yet are, ironically, proving the truth of post-modernism.
God designed us infidels just as God designed Fords. He designed Fords better than Holdens. Thus while Fords are superior and therefore Holdens inferior - this is only in certain aspects such as Ford GTHO's appeal and grunt. (Sorry T.U.S., even though a Ford - Cobras are wankmobiles. Shonga I concede that Monaros also produce a strange but predictable reaction in most males and some females.) Generally speaking however, Holdens are superior in certain aspects such as their ability to get a laugh or strengthen the arms of people who have to wrestle with the doors to get them shut. No seriously Monaro GTS are fine just not as awe inspiring as GTHO. Black Pontiac Trans Am is The Car for the discerning Infidels like me (sorry Bandit).
Posted by rancitas, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 11:36:58 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
Still rattling on. - So applyng this to the ID debate it stands to reason (and a lot of faith) that children should be taught that Ford GTHO Falcons are to be Praised (in religious and manual-training classes); that ID is a religious proposition (in religious instructon and drama, especially, comedy); that evolution is a generally accepted and proven scientific theory, however, make sure that those that doubt the science are shown (as is the case now) how you test such a fact; how you set about to refute rather than just dispute on faith-based premises said facts (in science classes).

Also, one last parting point. Caro speaks as if gravity is a given. Well I know there is simply no such thing as gravity. The fact is, acccording to the lads down the road, this world sucks. Refute that
Posted by rancitas, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 11:39:39 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
slasher,
The living protein of DNA is limited to the range of natural organic chemistry available; beside our body functions by the absorption of protein from other DNA species. There is nothing unusual in the fact that DNA is found in all life forms as all living forms rely on the same range of proteins for survival. Life itself is a transformation fulidity happening in the catalist of water, air, blood etc.

To quote you, "If intelligent design is true why does all earth lifeform have DNA as the replicating chemical, why doesn't the designer have a whole range of replicating chemical structures. Quite simply it falls down at the first building block.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 8:01:49 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
ID theory - Some features in biology of creatures are too complex to be natural and therefore there must be a designer.

Using the same argument, God is so bloody complex and so there must a designer of God. But this designer is even more complex and hence there must a designer of this designer who designed God, But then this higher designer is even more complex so there must be an even higher designer.......

And so it goes on. Big bang seems less troublesome?

Anyway understanding the true histroy of the church as it is derived mainly from the ancient sun worshipper religions and adapted to suit, the SUN saviour is in essence the true God. Because we are all made of star stuff anyway. And when it finally expands to engulf the earth then we have the hell on earth. True Armageddon? The ancient people new best really we, just complicate things with this god stuff.
Posted by The Big Fish, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:27:37 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
To Whom It May Concern: You cannot have a serious debate about science and religion, reason and faith etc., if you insist on airing your most intimate religious, (or rather anti-religious) hang-ups. The same as you cannot have a serious debate about the man-woman relationship (biological, psychological or social) if you insist on airing your most intimate sexual hang-ups. There are namely two intimacies in the psychological make-up of a human being: the horizontal, sexual one, concerned with a partner (real or virtual, accepted or denied), and the vertical, religious one, concerned with a Creator (real or virtual, accepted or denied).
Posted by George, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 3:15:56 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
Intelligent Design informs us there is a mysterious designer making indeterminate modifications at an unspecified level to unidentified organisms using unknown techniques.

Nevertheless it must be true, because the fossil record has gaps.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 10:33:10 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 page is for practicing English purposes only.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 16 November 2005 10:46:20 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'm amazed by the number of comments coming from people who profess to know what the ID debate is about yet continue to make arguments that go either well beyond, well short or even fail to look carefully at their own ideas for what they call science.

It's important to understand when life first happened, we weren't there. Hence the debates.
Then to realise both arguments are attempting to piece together potential scenarios.

Both sides also have their own prejudice as a starting point, for Evolutionists its Methodological Naturalism, which attempts understanding origins with the bias of not invoking the supernatural.

For ID theorists it's with the bias of a designer when the evidence points to design. In the opinion of ID, there certainly seems to be many design features inherent within life itself.
To simply ignore this feature of life is unwise at best and purposely ignorant at worst.

The idea that one argument however, is based on a philosophical starting point and the other is not is also quite ignorant, the idea that one is attempting to push a certain barrow and the other is not is deceptive to say the least. Because both arguments have their own “God of the gaps”, one is supernatural the other is chance.

To underscore biogenesis as the best explanation without a real stretch of the intellect is no more puzzling than the consideration of a designer; both ultimately involve an incredible step of faith.

One, believes science must consider only materialistic origins, and when the data seems to indicate the odds could be overwhelmingly against it, they invoke answers such as ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ attempting to explain the lack of fossilised transitional forms and the Cambrian Explosion, being the 'biological big bang'.

The other believes it is just as plausible to consider a designer, both sides require faith and both sides need to be considered under the banner of ‘Objective Science’.

Yet both sides could be argued to be anything but Objective because both, it would seem, begin with their own prejudices.
Posted by edi, Thursday, 17 November 2005 10:15:38 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
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson is quoted as stating;

Science is fundamentally a game. It’s a game with one overriding rule:
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

To believe that ID proponents alone limit themselves to a philosophical staring point is naive in the extreme.

The Naturalistic view point, I believe was an excellent way to start the science process, it certainly has given us many insights.
It’s when we determine that any explanation is better than considering a design option, when the evidence points to specific design criterea, that Methodological Naturalism alone will fail us.

Science should be the search for the true answers, and it should be wary of limiting itself completely to the ‘Rules of a game’.

It seems to me that many people in this forum, are simply reading other forums of other peoples opinions without looking carefully and objectively at the ID / evolution debate. I sincerely look forward to a leading evolutionary theorist tackle a leading design theorist head on and let us all see where the best arguments may fall, rather than continue to hide behind these forums, magazine articles or newspaper columns. I sincerely look forward to both protagonists points of view without editorial constraints on either side.

I believe we will find that neither will truly satisfy our intellect.

I wonder, could that be due to a philosophical view we hold individually?
Posted by edi, Thursday, 17 November 2005 10:23:50 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
So far there is one side arguing only – those milking rednecks while blabbing of creation with different descriptions deployed.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 17 November 2005 10:25:49 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 kids of today are the scientific pioneers of the future.
What they should be taught first and foremost in science class is the fundamentals of science, what is science and what is its purpose, what is the scientific method, how is it used, what is a theory, what's the difference between conjecture and hypothesis, what is observation and evidence, how do you test theories, what is prediction, etc. Faith and beliefs are irrelevant in science.
When the kids are more advanced and get in to more specific fields of science such as biology they should learn what are the leading theories in the field, what are the observable facts that support the theories, what are the tests that have been and can be done, what are the gaps in the theories and some hypothesis that try to explain these gaps. ID might come in here very briefly along with other hypothesis and conjecture.
Most if not all fields of science are by no means completed bodies of knowledge so the emphasis, i think, on teaching science to kids (and grown-ups too) should be on furthering the knowledge in the field and increasing our understanding of this universe that we occupy.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 17 November 2005 2:42:32 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
Funny how people who can see through the claims of ID to be a scientifically-based theory can't see the same flaws in other popular theories that are equally invalid scientifically. Even the 'experts' involved can't or, more likely, won't.

For decades, psychiatry was based on the ideas of Freud, Jung, Reich etc. The public was led to believe that these ideas had been based on scientific research and proof. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet we all went along with it - because the 'experts' told us so.

The Greenhouse Theory is now touted as being based on science and having been scientifically 'proven'. Yet it fails on every basic critieria of what constitutes a scientific theory. Popper would be spinning in his grave. It fundamental flaw is that it simply UNPROVABLE. Or falsifiable, if you prefer.

The same criteria used for rejecting ID should be applied to other belief systems masquerading as science.
Posted by NODDY, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:48:28 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
By all means teach ID. Let the students be told the eye represents irreducible complexity, and all the other catchphrases. But do it while also teaching abourt, say, rabbit biology - explaining why rabbits have to eats their own faeces, or die. Or why the paper nautilus has a (not often you get to type these words) detachable swimming penis. Then let them make up their minds about an intelligent designer. And would anyone like to hear about the joys of a Lancia Beta coupe? A glorious car, so intelligently designed that replacing a water pump meant dropping the engine. But it attracted lots of attention, and won every traffic light Grand Prix. Wouldn't have minded a HO, though.
Posted by veryself, Monday, 21 November 2005 2:42:16 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
G'day all,

Firstly, while school curricula should include discussions about new ideas, controversies, public debates and so forth, when it comes to teach a particular subject matter, only well known, properly established facts should be taught. Teaching "The contoversy" the way creationists want it done would be equivilent to teaching the alternative to the round earth theory is the flat earth theory. Its an alternative to believe in if you wish to do so, but it is clearly not supported by the observable facts and therefore a waste of time to bring up in the class room where teachers often have a hard enough time teaching what they need to teach.

Secondly, while those who say sience and reason are based on belief are right in the absolute sense, they fail to recognise the fact that the whole point of science is to use reason to escape from the limitations of what belief alone can tell us about the world. The project of science is not so much about being right and finding new beliefs to hold on to, but about searching out the reasons for how the universe works. Dogma does occur in science including in the discipline of evolution biology but it doesn't stay around for long because the whole scientific process is designed to weed it out. Scientists believe that the scientific method using reason is the best way to explain natural phenomena and so far that belief has proved to be incredibly well founeded. Consistent and verifiable theories that explain why things are they way they are are constant being produced. The theory of evolution has been subject to this process for over 150 years. For those who understand the evidience, believing in evolution is like believing that the sky is blue (and the same thing, by the way, can now be said about human induced global warming). Believing in creationism, by comparison, is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Cheers

Cam
Posted by St Kilda, Thursday, 24 November 2005 5:46:27 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
St Kilda,
Your reasoning is bigoted by your belief and understanding of both ID and evolution. To assume design is fictional is nonsense.

Quote, "For those who understand the evidience, believing in evolution is like believing that the sky is blue (and the same thing, by the way, can now be said about human induced global warming). Believing in creationism, by comparison, is like believing in the tooth fairy."
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 24 November 2005 8:29:26 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
Its amazing the comments you get from those who know so little about evolutionary theory and so much less about the design concept.
As i said earlier this is not a question of science in this debate (contained in this forum) it is philosophical.

The alter that scientists worship should be objectionism, yet they are as dogmatic as many of the posts on this forum.
Example, it took 50 years before the idea that the speed of light was not infinite became accepted. 100 years for orbital rotation of the Sun and more recently 20 years for recognition of the work in abdominal bacteria (Nobel prize this year).

Further the idea that flat earth was popular to the intellectual world at any time in history is equally a joke. tell any who lived on the shore, who would first see the tops of the sails and then the hull as ships got closer, or the Egyptians who new of the City that had the sun directly reflected in a deep well and recognized that at a certain time of day there should have been no shadows also. Yet for the Egyptians their columns drew shadows, after much considerations of the time of year, they inferred the Earth was a sphere. Not to mention the biblical references to the circle of the earth, Isa 40:22, Prov 8:27. The word circle is the Hebrew word for a sphere, now that was 2800 years ago.

Lets get some posts on what people know not guess, not postulate, if you don’t know the argument don’t write about it!

The ID debate is to teach the flaws of E.T. through a scientific process, and that is all. So what is everyone afraid of?
Posted by edi, Monday, 28 November 2005 8:22:23 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
As someone who believes the Bible as it is written, I am an odd bird these days. A living fossil perhaps in the minds of most.

For me at least, the evidence concerning evolutionary theory resounds like a solid bell. The science is selective and erratic. As the judge in Pennsylvannia wrote, the theory is incomplete. That said, there is no question most who claim to be scientists agree with Darwin (although none of them can say how the first cell developed).

There was a post by a highly-lettered scientist, Robin Holliday, concerning the fundamental compatability between evolution and relgion or if you will, the Intelligent Design theory.

On that point I believe Mr. Holliday is absolutely right. Given my reading of scripture, one of us is incorrect about how life began and what purpose if any it has in terms of eternity.

Certainly those like me who believe in creation according to orthodox Christian beliefs (Jesus' ancestry to Adam is twice repeated in the New Testament, with both John and Paul attesting to His being the God of Creation with the Father and Holy Spirit)I cannot prove the hypothesis. I can give points to ponder. But you know what? I wasn't there were God stretched out his fingers and brought it into being, or conversely when the Big Bang blew.

In fact, nobody was there to observe. And it sure can't be repeated.

So here we are....

To those who scoff, I guess let's just wait and see. The Bible says Israel will be the center of world turmoil, and each of us will have a microchip implanted in our heads or hands if we want to buy or sell.

If (and they will) these things come to pass, will you believe?
Posted by snowman2795, Saturday, 24 December 2005 6:14:02 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
Bingo snowman, and well said. though there are not many who are capable at looking at the big picture in this reductionist world. They are like little boys, good at taking things apart yet can't put it all together.
I was a true skeptic before becoming a Christian, the only reason i could put things together was due to a lack of preconceptions.

Edwin Spencer summarized it this way “There is a principal which is a bar against all information, Which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance, That principal is condemnation before investigation”

In other words the greatest barrier to truth is the uninvestigated presumption that you already have it.

Jane Caro exercises a great deal of faith in her assumption of objective science.
Posted by edi, Monday, 23 January 2006 10:36:30 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
I believe in two things concerning this debate. God and United States. That being said, nothing like creationism or Intelligent design should be taught in public schools. Nothing that is founded in religion, any religion, should be taught in public schools. Just as I do not want other people's religion forced on me, I personally do not want to force mine on anyone else.

Anyone who believes Intelligent Design is a "scientifc theory", and not just away to teach religion in school, needs to seriously perform a common sense check and stop all the lying and acting like it's all innocent. That's not the way I want the people in my religion portrayed.

I want my children to learn about God in Church, from our Pastor, which is why the Church and the Pastor are there to begin with.
Posted by Murff, Saturday, 13 May 2006 3:51:52 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
Fantastic response Murff

OLO needs more christians like you.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 13 May 2006 7:52:19 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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