NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[bushwacked]

. It is not the open and shut case that you like to present it as and there are plenty of people within the scientific community that would agree.

 

I'm well aware of the difference between a theory and an open and shut case. Are you?

Edited November 21, 2007 by bushwacked

[tonorator]

We've already established you ignore science that contradicts your faith.

 

no we haven't. this is your belief.

 

i've expressed skepticism and have not ignored anything. this skepticism has been present before and after becoming a christian.

 

you are simply dead wrong.

[Ursa Majoris]

Sorry, but I disagree that the evidence shows that Macroevolution has almost certainly taken place. As I said earlier, there is plenty of evidence on the side of macroevolution - I won't argue that. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary as well.

Scientific evidence to DISprove evolution? Or at least indicate that the process has never occurred? Scientific evidence?

[I Like Soup]

I have no idea how to create life from no life but I am willing to bet it will be achieved in my lifetime and it won't be God doing it. As to the circumstances, I don't know but lightning or some electrical charge probably was involved.

I do believe the conditions that were believed to have existed early in the Earth's history were duplicated in a lab and they were able to create an amino acid or something...I'll have to look that one up.

 

Just for the sake of breaking this down, how would tonormanondog (sorry ton...I love that!) or Pirate define "macro-evolution"?

[Azazello1313]

Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was a "book" religion from the get go. Not only did Jesus confirm the inspiration of the OT but He promised inspiration of the New Testament. Although Jesus never wrote any book, He did promise on several occasions that the Holy Spirit would direct His disciples in proclaiming God's truth. When the Twelve were commissioned to preach He promised them it would be "the spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matt. 10:20); in sending out the Seventy, Jesus gave them authority, saying, "He who hears you hears me..."(Luke 10:16); in the Mount Olive discourse Jesus told His disciples, "It is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit" (Mark 13:11); In the Great Commission the disciples were given "all authority in Heaven and on earth" for "teaching" men to observe His commandments (Matt 28:18, 20; cf. John 20:23); the promise to send the Spirit to direct His disciples into "all the truth" was clearly given by Christ after the Last Supper (John 16:13). Likewise, He told them that the Holy Spirit would "teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).

 

this is hilarious. just as you totally disregard all the times jesus turns the jewish scriptures (old testament) on their head, you also disregard all the times jesus is sorely disappointed in his disciples because they misunderstand him or otherwise screw up. these are the people who were totally devoted to him, watching him do his work and teach about the kingdom of god every day...yet they consistently got the whole thing wrong.

 

yet the fundamentalists would have us believe that not only these very people who the new testament writings report as consistently not getting it, but the second and third (and fourth and fifth) generations of christians who wrote the new testament, not only "got" jesus perfectly, but they also dictated a bunch of writings directly from the mouth of god himself. and then the even LATER generations of catholic church bishops somehow managed to determine exactly which books were dictated from god and which ones were heretical. lots of perfect people throughout centuries and centuries of christian life in this view...when if you actually READ the new testament honestly, NOBODY is reported as understanding jesus' message completely accurately.

 

read this and see what you think, JJ

[Caveman_Nick]

Theory is a scientific term; there is no such thing as a non-scientific theory.

 

 

That is not true. Read the definition of theory.

 

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

[Jumpin Johnies]

Sure, as long as when this thread ends you don't waste time trying to recruit me to snake handling by quoting bible verses.

Deal friend

[Jumpin Johnies]

So what are "exactly the right circumstances" to make life just happen from nothing that has life?

Because I'd really like to have a horse but don't want to pay for one.

I asked tis question with three other questions. No one answered this particular question.

[bushwacked]

That is not true. Read the definition of theory.

 

 

Well, when one is using it explicitly to describe in technical terms of science it is misleading to interchange it with one of the technically incorrect terms (speculation; conjecture...etc). Of course they have a definition.

[Jumpin Johnies]

this is hilarious. just as you totally disregard all the times jesus turns the jewish scriptures (old testament) on their head, you also disregard all the times jesus is sorely disappointed in his disciples because they misunderstand him or otherwise screw up. these are the people who were totally devoted to him, watching him do his work and teach about the kingdom of god every day...yet they consistently got the whole thing wrong.

 

yet the fundamentalists would have us believe that not only these very people who the new testament writings report as consistently not getting it, but the second and third (and fourth and fifth) generations of christians who wrote the new testament, not only "got" jesus perfectly, but they also dictated a bunch of writings directly from the mouth of god himself. and then the even LATER generations of catholic church bishops somehow managed to determine exactly which books were dictated from god and which ones were heretical. lots of perfect people throughout centuries and centuries of christian life in this view...when if you actually READ the new testament honestly, NOBODY is reported as understanding jesus' message completely accurately.

 

read this and see what you think, JJ

You obviously didn't read the quotes of Christ in my previous posts. Christ's disciples were much stronger after His death than they ever were before it. Their Spirit became filled with Him and these men who were cowards when He had been taken away were now emboldened and fearless with their teachings. It's been said jokingly that Christ should've called them the "Ye of little faith group" because He was always telling them that they had little faith. After they saw him resurrected they had complete faith and were able to use Jesus through themselves. I'll get to your link tomorrow.

[Caveman_Nick]

Well, when one is using it explicitly to describe in technical terms of science it is misleading to interchange it with one of the technically incorrect terms (speculation; conjecture...etc). Of course they have a definition.

 

 

 

So...what then? Were you trying to say that there is no such thing as a non-scientific scientific theory?

 

[bushwacked]

 

So...what then? Were you trying to say that there is no such thing as a non-scientific scientific theory?

 

 

 

 

We were, well most of us were, speaking in terms of strict scientific methods....and in that sense there isn't technically a non-scientific theory.....It's not scientifically accurate to call Creationism a theory in the discussion that was taken place.

 

It's not akin to pulling up a definition of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny; but whatever point you were trying to make is rather asinine given the context of the discussion.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

So...what then? Were you trying to say that there is no such thing as a non-scientific scientific theory?

 

We established earlier (about page nine or so) that the use of the term "theory" is different in science than in general colloquial use.

[Rovers]

Hey, can we get back to something. I've been asking about the origin of the first life since this topic started and still it seems that no one has an answer to that. If it wasn't created, then how - from nothing - did the first life appear? It's really a simple question and surely science, in all it's brilliance, has an answer. Any guesses?

 

Actually, I did answer this. My reponse was that I did believe that God created everything, and that evolution was a part of his original design. That however, is also as much a leap of faith as creationism is, and should not be taught in public schools, which is what this topic was originally about. This post was a typical fall back defensive position. The thread was NOT about beliving in a God, it was about whether or not teaching reigiously based idealogies are acceptable in publically funded educational institutions. As for the entire "do you believe in God and if not why so arguement" is pointless. But that is where this thread went, rather predictably, and I'll likely not post again unless it gets back on topic. But one thing this does prove to me..... those who want to teach creationism will agrue that it isn't a faith based theory, yet any discussion of same invariably turns into a discussion of belief in God and pretty much proves my point.... creatinist theory IS faith based, and any discussion ot it will invariably go just like this thread... into a "belief in God" discussion.

 

Sorta ironic.... say creationism isn't faith based, and then it can't be defended or discussed without those who are proponents without it ending up talking about the existance of God. That is because creationism is a God, faith based theory. If there is no God, than there can be no creationsts theory. It is founded, squarely on a belief in God. I think it's fine for anyone to make whatever leaps of faith they are apt to make.... just don't teach it in public schools.

[untateve]

Let me hip you to my wisdom.

 

First of all, as much as you know and believe that you are right, that's how much the other person knows and believes he's right.

 

2nd-I don't have a problem with christianity being taught as a theory (insert other descriptor here of your choice) in the public school system. However, I propose one caveat: Buddhism, the muslim faith, the jewish faith (theories), etc. should also be taught. As much as any christian knows that their faith (theory) is correct, the same can be said of those who are jewish, muslim, etc. Additionally, if children were taught the various theories of religion and gained understanding/insight into them, perhaps religion would not be so divisive. After all, the bottom line in religions is be a good person, help others when you can, try and forgive when others fk up.

 

Finally, just so everyone knows where I'm at--I see religion, all religion, as nothing more than mythology. Similar to greek and roman mythology. I think that maybe a person named JC lived a long time ago, but that's it. I think there is likely some type of supreme being but I don't think s/he takes much direct interest in any specific living thing. I don't know if I'm right and I don't care either way. Regardless, I try to be a good person, help others when I can, and try and forgive when others fk up.

[Caveman_Nick]

 

We were, well most of us were, speaking in terms of strict scientific methods....and in that sense there isn't technically a non-scientific theory.....It's not scientifically accurate to call Creationism a theory in the discussion that was taken place.

 

It's not akin to pulling up a definition of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny; but whatever point you were trying to make is rather asinine given the context of the discussion.

 

 

However you want to try and cover it, what you said was not accurate.

 

100 years ago people said much of the same things that people are saying here regarding the Big Bang theory. The problem with the Intelligent Design theory is that it is necessary to begin with a virtually unprovable assumption, that of some kind of intervention. This is one of the main problems with the Big Bang. The scientists can't prove that an explosion ever happened. They can only prove that conditions exist, and then they postulate that a likely cause of those conditions would be a tremendous explosion. There are tons of holes in the theory, but there is also evidence to support it.

 

I don't think a scientist or mathematician will ever be able come up with the equivalent of the Friedmann models, and so in that sense it is unlikely that ID will ever stand up as a scientific theory. I would think the roots of that proof would have to be somewhere in the chaos theory and entropy veins, and trying to track those concepts back over time to a point where you could definitively say that ID occurred, or is occurring is not probably. Any ID theories will more likely be philosophical in nature in the tradition of Hegel.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Let me hip you to my wisdom.

 

First of all, as much as you know and believe that you are right, that's how much the other person knows and believes he's right.

 

2nd-I don't have a problem with christianity being taught as a theory (insert other descriptor here of your choice) in the public school system. However, I propose one caveat: Buddhism, the muslim faith, the jewish faith (theories), etc. should also be taught. As much as any christian knows that their faith (theory) is correct, the same can be said of those who are jewish, muslim, etc.

There are a couple of differences in Christianity over Budhism, Islam and Judaism. Muhammed, Budha, etc. never claimed to be God, Jesus did repeatedly. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions so they all jive up until Ishmael and Isaac and that's where Islam spilts off, Judaism and Christianity agree after Malichi but befor Matthew. I think the three Abrahamic religions have the same creationist theory but I'm not sure. I don't know anything about Budhism, maybe Billay could enlighten us there.

 

I know you folks are frustrated with trying to shove scientific formulads down my throat that use hypotheitcal and vtell us that God created an aged world but you all have completely dismissed all of the prophecies of Christ, all of the writings about Christ and the fact that His disciples were emboldened after His physical death, preached His gospel and were made martyrs because of it. Not to mention people started going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday immediately after His physical death and resurrection because they believed in Him.

[Jumpin Johnies]

I would also like to point out that Islam wasn't even a formaliuzed religion until Muhammed came along sometime in the 600 ADs or whenever it may have been.

[Kid Cid]

Ok, a recap for those who just tuned in:

 

• The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory in the truest sense of the term. It is based on observations of real world phenomena coupled with logic. It is not complete and there are still gaps. Hence it is called a Theory and not a Law.
  
• The Theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain how any form of life originated, only how one species evolved into another one.
  
• The story of creation attempts to explain exactly how life started on this planet. In doing so, it completely ignores the evidence presented supporting the Theory of Evolution. Or to put things in chronological order, the Theory of Evolution invalidates one of the basic principals of the story of creation; that each species came into being exactly as it is observed today.
  
• The story of creation has no scientific evidence to support that it ever occurred. That it even survives in a historical context is solely based on the fact that we do know that later writings on the nomadic tribe called the Jews validate that they did indeed exist.
  
• The supporters of the Theory of Evolution use scientific observations and logic to support their arguments. They acknowledge that it isn't a perfect theory and urge continued investigation of the question to find the truth.
  
• The supporters of the story of creation use faith, scripture, and vague historical references to support their claim. They offer no actual evidence in support of their claims.
  
• Intelligent Design (ID) attempts to bridge the gap between the story of creation and the Theory of Evolution claiming that the order and laws present in the world today could only have come about because some "designer" created them. They could not have occurred randomly.
  
• ID is routinely supported by faith based organizations and spoken out against by the scientific community for the exact same reasons as the story of creation and the Theory of Evolution.
  
• This is an argument restricted to the Western Civilization because it in no way, shape or form addressed the belief system of the majority of the planet's population.
  

 

Did I miss anything?

[Jumpin Johnies]

Did I miss anything?

Yes

[Kid Cid]

Yes

That was helpful.

[DemonKnight]

100 years ago people said much of the same things that people are saying here regarding the Big Bang theory. The problem with the Intelligent Design theory is that it is necessary to begin with a virtually unprovable assumption, that of some kind of intervention. This is one of the main problems with the Big Bang. The scientists can't prove that an explosion ever happened. They can only prove that conditions exist, and then they postulate that a likely cause of those conditions would be a tremendous explosion. There are tons of holes in the theory, but there is also evidence to support it.

 

You see, we have evidence that the Big Bang occured such as the Hubble redshifting of galaxies which indicate they are moving away from a central point, radiometric dating of stars and an ever cooling ambient temprature of the universe. Pretty sound evidence, if you ask me. Wheres your evidence that life was started by some god. Just one piece of evidence is all I ask.

[Kid Cid]

You see, we have evidence that the Big Bang occured such as the Hubble redshifting of galaxies which indicate they are moving away from a central point, radiometric dating of stars and an ever cooling ambient temprature of the universe. Pretty sound evidence, if you ask me. Wheres your evidence that life was started by some god. Just one piece of evidence is all I ask.

Actually it is evidence, but isn't there a debate surrounding String Theory that kinda deflates the Big Bang Theory? I'll have to go look that up.

[DemonKnight]

There are a couple of differences in Christianity over Budhism, Islam and Judaism. Muhammed, Budha, etc. never claimed to be God, Jesus did repeatedly. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions so they all jive up until Ishmael and Isaac and that's where Islam spilts off, Judaism and Christianity agree after Malichi but befor Matthew. I think the three Abrahamic religions have the same creationist theory but I'm not sure. I don't know anything about Budhism, maybe Billay could enlighten us there.

 

So since Jesus claimed to be god that makes it okay to teach in schools?

 

I was raised Nichiren Daishonin Buddhist. You are correct that no Buddhist ever claimed to be god. No one goes to hell and thier are no sinners. It is, essentially, a moral guide that is meant to ease every day suffering. If you would like more info on the subject I would be happy to provide it.

[DemonKnight]

Actually it is evidence, but isn't there a debate surrounding String Theory that kinda deflates the Big Bang Theory? I'll have to go look that up.

 

Hmm, not sure about that. Post it if you find anything. In any case, I am just tryijng to point out that there is indeed evidence to work toward proving the Big Bang. And none to work toward proving Creationism.