Good news for science, bad news for ID!

[Sergeant]

Have you even looked at the evidence? There is lots of it in favor of evolution. On the other hand, the ONLY evidence for intelligent design comes from religious texts, which are not scientifically valid sources. Every single attempt at a logical argument by intelligent design supporters has been completely discredited.

I should point out I don't argue evolution happens. I know evolution happens. What I disagree with is the theory that human life evolved from some pool of primordial ooze billions of years ago. You can be a descendant of primates if you want, but I'm not.

Creation by God, intelligent design, Creationism, whatever you want to call it, is not a scientific theory and, as such, is scientifically unproveable. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it is just as possible as saying we evolved from a single cell organism born 6 billion years ago. I'm arguing that the big bang event science contests is no more proveable than guided creation is. No one can prove a big bang happened, no one can prove it didn't. Same with the creation view. It all comes down to what you hold as truth, or something close enough to truth to matter.

For me, I have no doubts all that is came from supremely intelligent, powerful and capable persons who I also believe used evolution as a tool in that process.

Evolution and creationism are not exclusive. Science and religion are not exclusive either. We just want to make them that way cause people say that's how it should be.

It's all a matter of opinion.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine:
Again, I’m not arguing about the validity of irreducible complexity, I’m just responding to your fallacious statement that all arguments used by ID advocates come from religious texts. So unless you can show me somewhere in a bible, the Torah, the Koran, or some other religious text where it mentions the concept of irreducible complexity, then I’ve proven my case.

And WHY are they trying to argue irreducible complexity? The evidence alone doesn't support it, so the only reason for the argument is their religious texts say god exists. The ONLY reason anyone would attempt to argue it is to prove the validity of their religious beliefs.

Wrong on so many counts:

First of all, your initial statement said that the arguments for intelligent design are taken from religious texts. Now you are arguing that they come from religious beliefs that you say are derived from religious texts. That’s not the same argument and you know it.

Nice nitpicking. You know perfectly well that a religious text and a religious belief are the same thing as far as the "controversy" is concerned. There is NO scientific argument in favor of ID, all of them come directly from religious sources.

Secondly, since religion can be pretty much defined as a belief in a personal god or gods, I doubt if any didn’t teach that the Earth was created by an outside source. And since many of these religions were taught orally, many people believed in intelligent design without obtaining this belief from religious texts. Native American cultures believed in intelligent design without having written texts at all.

Again, nice nitpicking. Why not try to disprove my argument that the only support for intelligent design comes from religious sources, instead of focusing on the specific word choice. Unless you have some reason that the phrase "my god did it" is somehow fundamentally different if it's passed on orally instead of being written in a book?

Thirdly, you again show your ignorance of religious people and their beliefs when you imply that intelligent design is just a rationalization of the literal translation of the Bible or other religious texts. Only a very small percentage of religious people believe in a literal translation of the Bible; in fact, the largest sect (Roman Catholic Church) has rejected the literal translation of the Bible for over 100 years. All of them, however, believe that some supreme being guided Creation in some way at some time.

And all those beliefs are a rationalization of the bible's literal words. They've realized that a literal interpretation is flawed, so they try to incorporate its basic concepts in a way that isn't so absurd. You apparently don't understand the meaning of rationalization if you can't see why "literal genesis is wrong.... but maybe god used evolution as his tool" is one.

Lastly, there are people who believe in the concept of God who do not believe in organized religion at all (deists). I am one and so was Einstein.
So I and Einstein and many others believe in the concept of intelligent design but completely repudiate religious texts and the concept of a God who gets involved in everyday life. That being said, I do not want intelligent design taught in public school science classes. Philosophy classes, yes; but not science classes.

What's your point? That I'm wrong, because deists haven't actually written down their beliefs? Whether it's from a printed book or not, that belief in intelligent design is coming directly from a belief in god, not a purely rational look at the evidence.

[Peregrine]

I should point out I don't argue evolution happens. I know evolution happens. What I disagree with is the theory that human life evolved from some pool of primordial ooze billions of years ago. You can be a descendant of primates if you want, but I'm not.

That's not in any way a logical belief. If you accept the mechanism of evolution works, how do you reject the overwhelming evidence in favor of humans and primates having a common ancestor (NOT humans being descendents of modern apes, as the theory is commonly misrepresented as)?

Creation by God, intelligent design, Creationism, whatever you want to call it, is not a scientific theory and, as such, is scientifically unproveable. I'm not arguing that.

Good. So you accept that intelligent design doesn't belong anywhere near science classes?

I'm arguing that it is just as possible as saying we evolved from a single cell organism born 6 billion years ago. I'm arguing that the big bang event science contests is no more proveable than guided creation is. No one can prove a big bang happened, no one can prove it didn't. Same with the creation view. It all comes down to what you hold as truth, or something close enough to truth to matter.

Are you arguing this in the context of scientific theories, or in the context of personal belief? If you're talking about the scientific validity of each side's arguments, it's not even close. Occam's razor cuts away the extra guiding element quite nicely.

On the other hand, if you're talking about personal belief, sure, they're both equally valid. It's your choice to favor emotion and faith over pure logical analysis.

For me, I have no doubts all that is came from supremely intelligent, powerful and capable persons who I also believe used evolution as a tool in that process.

Which is fine, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want. But those beliefs don't belong in science class, and they don't come from a purely rational analysis of the evidence.

[zarikdon]

Lastly, there are people who believe in the concept of God who do not believe in organized religion at all (deists). I am one and so was Einstein.
So I and Einstein and many others believe in the concept of intelligent design but completely repudiate religious texts and the concept of a God who gets involved in everyday life. That being said, I do not want intelligent design taught in public school science classes. Philosophy classes, yes; but not science classes.

Einstein believed in the existence of an organizing principle for the universe, by which he meant that the laws of nature (the universe) ought to be orderly and beautiful, but it's an interpretative stretch to say that Einstein believed it was due to "design" or "intelligent design," whatever that means. Einstein's God, or abstract principle, was a distant and extremely mysterious thing, and to describe it as "intelligent" or "designing" is to ascribe human qualities to it that are not necessarily proper. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean, however, because of how loosely we use the phrase "intelligent design" today.

But if you doubt the abstractness of Einstein's belief, here's a reply that he wrote himself (the bolded portion is my own emphasis):

On 22 March 1954 a self-made man sent Einstein in Princeton a long handwritten letter-four closely packed pages in English. The correspondent despaired that there were so few people like Einstein who had the courage to speak out, and he wondered if it would not be best to return the world to the animals. Saying "I presume you would like to know who I am," he went on to tell in detail how he had come from Italy to the United States at the age of nine, arriving in bitter cold weather, as a result of which his sisters died while he barely survived; how after six months of schooling he went to work at age ten; how at age seventeen he went to Evening School; and so on, so that now he had a regular job as an experimental machinist, had a spare-time business of his own, and had some patents to his credit. He declared himself an atheist. He said that real education came from reading books. He cited an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts as to the article's accuracy. He was irreverent about various aspects of formal religion, speaking about the millions of people who prayed to God in many languages, and remarking that God must have an enormous clerical staff to keep track of all their sins. And he ended with a long discussion of the social and political systems of Italy and the United States that it would take too long to describe here. He also enclosed a check for Einstein to give to charity.

On 24 March 1954 Einstein answered in English as follows:

I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

[Sergeant]

That's not in any way a logical belief. If you accept the mechanism of evolution works, how do you reject the overwhelming evidence in favor of humans and primates having a common ancestor (NOT humans being descendents of modern apes, as the theory is commonly misrepresented as)?

Because it disagrees wholeheartedly with belief in divine creation. If the bible tells it AT ALL like it ended up being, then we did not descend from primates or originate as ooze. Since I am a firm, stubborn believer in divine creation, that makes it impossible to believe we evolved from pond scum.

Good. So you accept that intelligent design doesn't belong anywhere near science classes?

That's not what I said. If it is possible creation happened through intelligent design, would that not BE science since all that is scientific would be based on and the study of things with divine origin. What's the big deal in saying "here is the theory of evolution and what it says; and here is the idea that we and our world have divine origins and what it says. Now you decide what you want to believe."

Is that so horrible? Showing people both sides and letting them decide for themselves? Or do you prefer the standard way of history, leaving out the parts you don't agree with and teaching only the ones you do. That doesn't seem like the stance you're trying to make.

Are you arguing this in the context of scientific theories, or in the context of personal belief? If you're talking about the scientific validity of each side's arguments, it's not even close. Occam's razor cuts away the extra guiding element quite nicely.

Except the principle of parsimony is not always right. The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. There is nothing simple about this planet, the life on it or human nature. It is complex to a degree that a warehouse of Occam's razors could not trim away.

On the other hand, if you're talking about personal belief, sure, they're both equally valid. It's your choice to favor emotion and faith over pure logical analysis.

To a degree, I am. Though I don't always favor emotion or faith over logic. Emotion would have had me kill a lot of people throughout my life. Logic said otherwise and the reasoning, thinking man I am chose logic because it FELT right. Does that tickle your logical processes?

Choosing one extreme or the other is not good. There is a place where faith and logic work hand in hand. That's where I am working to be.

Which is fine, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want. But those beliefs don't belong in science class, and they don't come from a purely rational analysis of the evidence.

Try to tell a new mother there's nothing miraculous about her newborn child, that it was strictly a mechanical, scientific process, nothing magical or divine. Try telling people who've experienced miracles or witnessed occurences that science can't touch. People who walk away from car wrecks or house fires when logic and science demand they should be dead. Mothers who lift objects many times their own weight to free a child, in defiance of science and the limits of biology. The woman who recently hit the ground at 50 miles an hour when her parachute didn't open, yet she lived and will recover completely, not to mention her unborn child survived unharmed. The cancer patient who is cancer free the next day after receiving a faith based, illogical, unscientific blessing from a faithful father?

What does science have to say about that. What happens when something happens outside the laws, theories and "pure logical analysis" of science. There are things in this world that science can't hope to explain but we don't prevent them from trying. So why is it ok to deny differing view from the traditional one from the minds of those who will inherit this planet when we're gone?

[Peregrine]

Because it disagrees wholeheartedly with belief in divine creation. If the bible tells it AT ALL like it ended up being, then we did not descend from primates or originate as ooze. Since I am a firm, stubborn believer in divine creation, that makes it impossible to believe we evolved from pond scum.

Then you've already departed from science and into the realm of faith and emotion. So why bother believing in evolution at all?

That's not what I said. If it is possible creation happened through intelligent design, would that not BE science since all that is scientific would be based on and the study of things with divine origin. What's the big deal in saying "here is the theory of evolution and what it says; and here is the idea that we and our world have divine origins and what it says. Now you decide what you want to believe."

That's a pretty big "if" you're talking about. And right now, there's no evidence to support it outside of religious beliefs. Until proof finally shows up, it doesn't belong in science class.

Is that so horrible? Showing people both sides and letting them decide for themselves? Or do you prefer the standard way of history, leaving out the parts you don't agree with and teaching only the ones you do. That doesn't seem like the stance you're trying to make.

It's horrible because it means teaching facts is taking second priority to satisfying the politicians. And it's horrible because presenting intelligent design as anything other than "here's what they claim, and here's the countless reasons why they're wrong" is only going to confuse people. Science classes are supposed to teach facts, and dragging in invalid theories only reduces the effectiveness of our educational system. And honestly, we've already done way more than enough of that already.

Except the principle of parsimony is not always right. The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. There is nothing simple about this planet, the life on it or human nature. It is complex to a degree that a warehouse of Occam's razors could not trim away.

Except that occam's razor says nothing about simplcity. It says you never include extra factors in your explanation that aren't required. If you accept that evolution happens, you have two theories:

1) Evolution happens, as observed.

2) Evolution happens, as observed, and an omnipotent deity guides it.

The extra item in #2 is not supported by the observed facts, and so occam's razor removes it. Until evidence is found to support including it (and the bible doesn't count as valid scientific evidence), theory #1 is the best one.

To a degree, I am. Though I don't always favor emotion or faith over logic. Emotion would have had me kill a lot of people throughout my life. Logic said otherwise and the reasoning, thinking man I am chose logic because it FELT right. Does that tickle your logical processes?

Choosing one extreme or the other is not good. There is a place where faith and logic work hand in hand. That's where I am working to be.

I never said it was a black and white choice. But in the case of intelligent design, it's based purely on emotion/faith, and therefore can't be presented as a scientific theory. If you want to reject science in this case and believe in it, fine, as long as you're aware that you're making that choice.

Try to tell a new mother there's nothing miraculous about her newborn child, that it was strictly a mechanical, scientific process, nothing magical or divine.

Textbook appeal to emotion fallacy.

Try telling people who've experienced miracles or witnessed occurences that science can't touch.

You're confusing "can't touch" with "doesn't offer the explanation I want to believe". Plenty of these so-called miracles can be explained by science, but people don't want to believe that their "miracle" isn't divine.

People who walk away from car wrecks or house fires when logic and science demand they should be dead.

Why does it demand they should be dead? Most people in their circumstances DO die. Occasionally something looks nasty, but random chance lets them survive... the car hits at just the right angle to minimize the forces, the house fire burns just a bit too slow to kill them, etc. Rare cases like that don't mean anything, it would only defy science/logic if it happened frequently.

Mothers who lift objects many times their own weight to free a child, in defiance of science and the limits of biology.

Please, show me one that's so impossible.

The woman who recently hit the ground at 50 miles an hour when her parachute didn't open, yet she lived and will recover completely, not to mention her unborn child survived unharmed.

Which is just a comment on our medical techology that she could be saved. That woman suffered severe injuries and would've died in a less advanced society. And you'll notice that's one person compared to a huge majority that DO die from falls like that (or even less). She got lucky, and was the rare lucky one that landed at just the right angle to absorb the force on non-fatal parts of her body.

The cancer patient who is cancer free the next day after receiving a faith based, illogical, unscientific blessing from a faithful father?

Please, give me an example from a reliable source. Cancer-free, in one night, without involving major medical treatment. And by reliable, I mean a peer-reviewed medical journal.

What does science have to say about that. What happens when something happens outside the laws, theories and "pure logical analysis" of science.

That's by definition impossible. Science takes all observed evidence and attempts to explain it. It's impossible for something to happen outside of science. If it truly contradicts the current laws and theories, new theories will be made and old ones revised to include it.

There are things in this world that science can't hope to explain but we don't prevent them from trying. So why is it ok to deny differing view from the traditional one from the minds of those who will inherit this planet when we're gone?

Because the differing view has no factual evidence behind it, and isn't science. Teach it in religion class, fine. But it has no more place in science class than teaching the flat earth is the center of the universe. At best, it's a waste of time, at worst it's giving easily-persuaded students flawed knowledge. It's called progress... we move on, and old ideas are discarded.

[Cloud_Walker]

Einstein believed in the existence of an organizing principle for the universe, by which he meant that the laws of nature (the universe) ought to be orderly and beautiful, but it's an interpretative stretch to say that Einstein believed it was due to "design" or "intelligent design," whatever that means. Einstein's God, or abstract principle, was a distant and extremely mysterious thing, and to describe it as "intelligent" or "designing" is to ascribe human qualities to it that are not necessarily proper. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean, however, because of how loosely we use the phrase "intelligent design" today.

But if you doubt the abstractness of Einstein's belief, here's a reply that he wrote himself (the bolded portion is my own emphasis):

Even further, Spinoza's god is synonymous with the universe.

[Cloud_Walker]

And, just to nitpick a little, their arguments can be refuted logically, not “scientifically”. If that were the case, then ID would be a scientific hypothesis that could be tested and disproved or supported by the evidence. Their basic belief is that some Being at some time directed Evolution to some degree. How in the hell do you refute that?

Actually, that's wrong because all ID is is an attack on the current science, i.e., evolution. It makes no scientific argument of its own, yet its proponents claim it to be scientific. The mere existence of evolution, i.e., science, refutes ID.

[Stevinator]

Any religion that adapts and evolves is not worth following.


Where did this falacy start?
Religion is way of telling the "Truth" and saying how things are. It's purpose can only be that. I think church attendance would plummit if people understood that they are exected to believe what is preached as Gospel.

No argument from me on that first part. I can't think of any religion worth following. I am not religious, Surprise!

Um, what's the point of being preached to if you're not supposed to believe it? Really? They call it gospel for a reason. You're supposed to take it as gospel.

[Stevinator]

Because it disagrees wholeheartedly with belief in divine creation. If the bible tells it AT ALL like it ended up being, then we did not descend from primates or originate as ooze. Since I am a firm, stubborn believer in divine creation, that makes it impossible to believe we evolved from pond scum.



That's not what I said. If it is possible creation happened through intelligent design, would that not BE science since all that is scientific would be based on and the study of things with divine origin. What's the big deal in saying "here is the theory of evolution and what it says; and here is the idea that we and our world have divine origins and what it says. Now you decide what you want to believe."

Is that so horrible? Showing people both sides and letting them decide for themselves? Or do you prefer the standard way of history, leaving out the parts you don't agree with and teaching only the ones you do. That doesn't seem like the stance you're trying to make.




Except the principle of parsimony is not always right. The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. There is nothing simple about this planet, the life on it or human nature. It is complex to a degree that a warehouse of Occam's razors could not trim away.



To a degree, I am. Though I don't always favor emotion or faith over logic. Emotion would have had me kill a lot of people throughout my life. Logic said otherwise and the reasoning, thinking man I am chose logic because it FELT right. Does that tickle your logical processes?

Choosing one extreme or the other is not good. There is a place where faith and logic work hand in hand. That's where I am working to be.



Try to tell a new mother there's nothing miraculous about her newborn child, that it was strictly a mechanical, scientific process, nothing magical or divine. Try telling people who've experienced miracles or witnessed occurences that science can't touch. People who walk away from car wrecks or house fires when logic and science demand they should be dead. Mothers who lift objects many times their own weight to free a child, in defiance of science and the limits of biology. The woman who recently hit the ground at 50 miles an hour when her parachute didn't open, yet she lived and will recover completely, not to mention her unborn child survived unharmed. The cancer patient who is cancer free the next day after receiving a faith based, illogical, unscientific blessing from a faithful father?

What does science have to say about that. What happens when something happens outside the laws, theories and "pure logical analysis" of science. There are things in this world that science can't hope to explain but we don't prevent them from trying. So why is it ok to deny differing view from the traditional one from the minds of those who will inherit this planet when we're gone?

so basically, stuff happens every once in a while that you can't explain, so you say "God Did it", and you figure since he did that, he prolly did all this ogher stuff you can explain, and the explanation is wrong. That's fine, if you want you can just make stuff up. Heck, you grabbed a gun and fought for all our rights' to do that...but let's not tell the little kiddies all the made up stuff.

For some reason you sound much less convincing now than I remember you sounding before you left. could just be me.