#269473 - 14/11/2005 03:02
I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Both to intentionally detract from the abortion thread, and because I'm in a tense mood, here's something different:
I support Intelligent Design, and I didn't even realize it until a few days ago. Here's my belief, which I feel is the perfect, most elegant marriage of science and faith (aka: religion):
God is the particulate building block of all existence. If you break down any atom to its subatomic parts, then break down those parts further and further, eventually you will find a single type of particle. This particle obeys an unfathomably complex set of rules which dictates how it functions in the proximity of other particles of its type. For example, when a certain set of these parts are arranged in a certain way, they form a subatomic particle (or an energy particle?); which, when in proximity of other particles, forms an atom; which combines with others to form matter.
This God does what every religion wants it to; explains the great mysteries of "what guides us?" and "what are we?". We are guided by the ruleset of this particle as it flows up to higher orders of matter, energy, and other forces. Everything we say and do, in the past, present, and future, is guided by the interactions between the God-like particles and its neighbors. If you could gather and arrange enough particles into the form of an existing cactus plant, your new plant would exist and behave exactly identical to the original. This is impossible, however, because the second plant would exist in a different part of space, thus being influenced differently by the proximity of neighboring particles, giving it slightly different properties.
So, God is passive, in that it just sits there as the foundation of reality. But it is active since its interaction rules govern every action. As such, fate is predetermined. If the rule set was known, the past, present, and future of any existing object could be calculated. Thus, we are products of Intelligent Design. Though the design may not have been intelligently crafted, it imitates such by ditcating our actions.
On a slightly related note: It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it. Couldn't we calculate the existence of indirectly-observable objects? In other news, I think I've tentatively wrapped my mind around 6th dimensional existence. 7th, though, eludes me. Clearly I'm going insane (or I need to get out more).
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269474 - 14/11/2005 03:54
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
So you're saying God is that part of physics that we don't understand yet? Or perhaps just the God created physics and matter, and is sitting back and seeing how it all plays out? Quote:
It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it.
Meow.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269475 - 14/11/2005 04:45
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
This thread really doesn't speak "design" to me. And "intelligent" is up for argument.
The fight is on. Except I don't care enough about it to continue. Someone tag me out.
Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269476 - 14/11/2005 05:55
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
So... these itty-bitty particles are really gods, and, since I'm made up of a whole bunch of particles, I am, therefor, inhabited by, like, a jillion of these gods? Sounds an awful lot like body-thetans, to me. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269477 - 14/11/2005 11:23
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
As such, fate is predetermined. If the rule set was known, the past, present, and future of any existing object could be calculated. Thus, we are products of Intelligent Design.
To rephrase your premise, if something is predtermined, it must therefore have been created by something that is intelligent through a design. This is not a true statement. It is quite possible for something to be predetermined without being caused by something intelligent or by a design. Ultimately you admist as much:
Quote:
Though the design may not have been intelligently crafted, it imitates such by ditcating our actions.
Predetermination doesn't really align itself either way in the creation debate. I think there are probably free will/ predetermination advocates on either side.
Now I will say that a proper view of ID would consider any intelligent force accpetable, not just a Christian notion of "God", but a source that merely mimics intelligence beause of predetermination does not cut the muster.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269478 - 14/11/2005 11:51
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it. Couldn't we calculate the existence of indirectly-observable objects?
In some sense, this is what high-energy physics is all about. They come up with mathematical models to describe all the particles and such that they know about, and those models predict other particles that haven't yet been observed. The classic example of this is the neutrino. You need neutrinos to make subatomic physics work properly, yet neutrinos are (approximately) massless and don't really interact with anything. Even if you were deep underground, they'd be happily flying through you and the earth without bothering to stop and have some tea.
The trick, then, is constructing experiments to validate the existence and alleged properties of neutrinos. That's what science is all about.
As to Intelligent Design, the pseudo-religious movement, I went slogging through the Discovery Institute's web site to see if I could find a concise expression of the theory. Here's the best I could find:
Quote:
The fact that intelligent design doesn’t identify the source of design is not political calculation but precise thinking, refusing to go beyond what the scientific evidence tells us. Consider intelligent design’s most famous design inference, the bacterial flagellum. Michael Behe shows that this microscopic rotary engine, like an automobile engine, needs all of its machinery in place to function at all. The best explanation for this irreducibly complex machine is intelligent design, but there's no inscription on the bushing of this little motor that identifies its maker. To discover the identity of its designer(s), one has to look beyond science.
That's one of their shining star theories. Of course, evolution certainly can explain the evolution of the flagellum and is the best theory for why. Before ID can be a part of a science curriculum, it needs to (a) propose theories that are testable and (b) perform those tests. Until they've done so, ID is, at best, an alternative creation myth.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269479 - 14/11/2005 13:47
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
I don't want to get involved in the ID vs. Evolution debate, because it's one of those things where you're unlikely to even slightly shift the other guy's opinion. However, I just finished reading The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins, and it's pretty much cemented, in my mind, Evolution as a viable theory, and ID as a load of bunk. This is to be expected, of course, Dawkins describes himself as an Ultra-Darwinist. Either way, the process of life is cool.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269480 - 14/11/2005 14:09
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Your "explanation" of things contains the usual amount of hand-waving and pseudo-scientific jargon that most ID folks seem to come up with, so it's as good as any other explanation I've read. Unfortunately, none of it is measurable, none of it is testable, and, therefore, none of it is science. Your theory, and all those of other Intelligent Design proponents, is as good as L. Ron Hubbard's "theta", or George Lucas' "force."
ID is nothing other than a manufactured vehicle to bring the teaching of "religion" (read: Jesus) to more people, and to do so under the guise of science education. ID's basic premise is "(science) + (???) = (an explanation of Life, The Universe, and Everything)" and the (???), no matter how they try to dance around it, is always "God." When you ask for data which supports the existence of God, all you get is flawed, circular logic like "well, evolution doesn't explain X, so X proves the existence of God."
Many ID folks will even admit that they cannot provide data to support the "God" part of their equation, but insist that the theory still warrants serious discussion in science classes. Science did not get where it is today by throwing one's arms up in the air and saying "well, we can't explain this huge, gaping hole in the foundation of our theory, but let's teach it as fact anyway!" Instead of starting out with a hypothesis and conducting experiments to test it, ID started out with a desired conclusion, and fills in whatever "evidence" people will believe to reach that desired conclusion. That's not the scientific method I remember.
Evolution is not a perfect theory. Natural selection doesn't always follow the patterns that we expect it to. But conveniently injecting the fudge factor of "God" into the equation undermines scientific progress. Let's keep Jesus in religion classes where he belongs. Or, if you insist on teaching ID in science class, I insist that this be taught as well.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269481 - 14/11/2005 14:48
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
ID's basic premise is "(science) + (???) = (an explanation of Life, The Universe, and Everything)" and the (???), no matter how they try to dance around it, is always "God."
Well, the ??? is actually the point of ID. It is the part of the equation that ID claims to solve. ID’s basic claim is that the world around us makes sense because of an Intelligent Designer, not an unguided sequences of events.
Quote:
Instead of starting out with a hypothesis and conducting experiments to test it, ID started out with a desired conclusion, and fills in whatever "evidence" people will believe to reach that desired conclusion.
I’ll agree that ID proponents start with the existence of God as a basic premise. I think then they follow the evidence where they believe it leads. To someone without the existence of God as a premise, however, the evidence doesn’t always lead the same place. The question is why it doesn’t. ID proponents will say it’s because non-ID start with a premise that precludes the existence of God. Non-ID will assert (like you did) that IDers only reach their conclusions because of their premise that God does exist. I think the assumptions on both sides are probably inaccurate, though there are hints of truth to both allegations.
I don’t think ID proponents are being disingenuous by assuming the existence of God. We all make assumptions born out of our experiences in order to determine truth. If we didn’t, we’d look like the guy in the Hitchhiker trilogy who takes so little on faith that he won’t trust is own recollection of how a pen works. Unfortunately, problems occur when we can’t all agree on the same assumptions.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269482 - 14/11/2005 15:13
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
But what you've described is (1) not science and (2) doesn't help describe the universe. Both of those facts mean that it's out of place in the science classroom.
As to point (1), science must obviously start with a premise, but the experiment might not prove that premise. It might as easily disprove it or say nothing about it at all. The notion that I can take the same steps as you and come up with a different result makes what you're describing not science. Science is determined by facts, not philosophical interpolation.
As to point (2), if you define God as being omnipotent and able to change the course of the universe at will, not only does it not help define how the universe works in a predictable manner, as His will is unpredictable (or, in other words, He works in mysterious ways), it throws the entirety of science out the window. If our experiments are reproducible because He just hasn't had the notion to change the rules yet, then science is worthless. In fact, let's just remove it from the classroom and replace it with a religion class. That'll work better.
To sum up, if it is true, it's irrelevant. It does not help us understand our world in an empirical manner, which is what science does. If you want an explanation for why, which is all that ID gives you, go to church.
Edited by wfaulk (14/11/2005 15:15)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269483 - 14/11/2005 15:33
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
You get no real argument on most of your post. I'm not really in favor of teaching ID in schools. The only thing I really want is for science classes to stay away from religous topis- i.e. how man was created.
Without a belief in God or the Bible as a premise science might reasonably tell us that man evolved rather than being created. However, many do have such a premise that will change how we interpret what science is telling us. This goes to point 2 that you make above. I am completely willing to grant evolution as a scientific theory in operation today and throughout history- I am not as willing to grant that it is responsible for the creation of man, as God has told us something different and is perfectly capeable of having made that happen since he can "change the course of the universe at will". And since I don't believe that man was created through evolution, I don't like it being taught as truth in the classroom.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269484 - 14/11/2005 16:13
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
So are you saying that man popped fully formed into the universe X number of years ago at the behest of God, outside the process of evolution, which created all the other life on the planet?
Or are you saying that the physical form of man evolved through evolution and that God created the mystical spark that made us human? (Actually, if it's this one, I'm almost inclined to say it was the serpent who did that.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269485 - 14/11/2005 16:58
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
So are you saying that man popped fully formed into the universe X number of years ago at the behest of God, outside the process of evolution, which created all the other life on the planet?
I'm honestly not sure exactly how it all happened- I think the most important aspect is that God created man. In my own contemplation I've considered that perhaps God spoke everything into existence and then let it run based on a set of rules from there, intervening at certain points.
Take for instance the feeding of the 5000 where Jesus made bread and fish appear. Assuming that this was a miracle and the fish appeared out of thin air, a scientific examination of said fish would lead to some very wrong conclusions about the fish- that it existed for so many years based on its size and shape, etc. But then, studying the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 through science really isn't very useful. The principles of how fish normally develop remain unchanged, even if this one example defies the rule. I consider it possible that Creation operates the same way.
What I absolutely believe (and I think you're in agreement here, at least conceptually), is that if/when God could/does intervene in the world, He has acted in a way that is outside of science and that science cannot inform us about. In my own personal conjecture I've reasoned that if Creation is one of those events where God operated outside of what we can observe and reproduce (which at some point He must have, if not with the creation of man at least with the creation of matter), then that becomes an event over which science isn't useful and if applied will come to wrong conclusions.
Anyway, as I've said a couple of times, thinking along these lines is personal conjecture and WAY outside of any serious Christian teaching, so it should be taken that way. Christianity asserts that God created man, and most orthodox Christian teaching holds that before man was created there was no death in the world. Why that doesn't line up with what we've been led to believe by science is something that Christians must resolve, either by modifying their doctrines, changing the way they view science, or re-examining the science behind the claims to find possible error. Most Christians take the third stance- mine is closer to the second.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269486 - 14/11/2005 17:17
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
What I absolutely believe (and I think you're in agreement here, at least conceptually), is that if/when God could/does intervene in the world
Boy, I don't know that I can really apply a truth value to a conjecture based on a false premise. It's like it's NaN.
Quote:
either by modifying their doctrines, changing the way they view science, or re-examining the science behind the claims to find possible error. Most Christians take the third stance- mine is closer to the second.
God, I hope you're wrong. I think you are. I don't think that most Christians I know (and remember I live and grew up in the Bible Belt) don't feel compelled to do any of those. I'm pretty most Christians recognize that the Bible is full of stories. Stories that may help them with moral quandaries, potentially, but stories nonetheless. I sincerely hope that you literalists are the minority I think you are.
Edit: The National Opinion Research Center would seem to indicate that you're not the extreme minority I'd hoped. I wonder if the mean lies closer to you and John or closer to that crazy woman on WifeSwap the other night. (I feel dirty just saying that, but I only saw it on The Soup. I swear.)
Edited by wfaulk (14/11/2005 17:25)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269487 - 14/11/2005 17:38
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Boy, I don't know that I can really apply a truth value to a conjecture based on a false premise. It's like it's NaN.
Your words from earlier:Quote:
As to point (2), if you define God as being omnipotent and able to change the course of the universe at will, not only does it not help define how the universe works in a predictable manner, as His will is unpredictable (or, in other words, He works in mysterious ways), it throws the entirety of science out the window.
The only difference is that my feeling is science isn't destoryed by intervention, only that it doesn't apply in those circumstances.
Quote:
I wonder if the mean lies closer to you and John or closer to that crazy woman on WifeSwap the other night.
I didn't see that, but actually John and I talked about it this weekend. I definitely think the mean is closer to the two of us than her and (based on the description that I heard), she would be one of the Christians I mentioned in another thread that I don't align myself with, politically or spiritually. We may both call oursleves Christians, but there is definitely a different meaning behind the word.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269488 - 14/11/2005 17:48
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
Quote:
God, I hope you're wrong.
LOL. I got a chuckle out of that one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269489 - 14/11/2005 17:51
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Earlier I was speaking hypothetically to disprove an implied point about the validity of teaching ID in school. Later you claimed that I could agree that if God intervened, then it was outside the realm of science. My argument is that I can't come to a truth conclusion based on the notion that God might do something. I don't know how the world would react at the intervention of the Tooth Fairy, either.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269490 - 14/11/2005 18:54
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
God is the particulate building block of all existence.
This particle obeys an unfathomably complex set of rules which dictates how it functions in the proximity of other particles of its type
If you break down any atom to its subatomic parts, then break down those parts further and further, eventually you will find a single type of particle.
Claiming that untestable, unprovable opinions are scientific facts supporting your ideological argument does not impress me.
If you will permit me to argue by the same rules of "logic", I can "prove" absolutely anything.
For example, I have incontestable proof that three plus three equals seven:
1) God created numbers.
2) God's creations are the essence of perfection.
3) Prime numbers are the only perfect numbers, since they cannot be subdivided into lesser numbers.
4) Since the number six is not a prime number, it is therefore imperfect, and cannot be part of God's plan.
5) Therefore, three plus three must equal seven, because to make it equal to a lesser number (such as five) would diminish God's glory.
Similarly, volcanoes are caused by purple hippopotami. I will leave the proof of this scientific theory to the students...
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269491 - 14/11/2005 19:27
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
...and the decline in the number of pirates is to blame for global warming.
Arrrrghh!
Are you implying that the heavenly beer volcano was created by a purple hippo? HERETIC!!!
All praise the great Noodly One.
[/silly noodliness]
Really though, it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan. I have no problem with that. However, that's not science.
The issue (as stated so well above) is that to be in a science class a theory has to be something that can be a)postulated b)tested c)confirmed d)modified e)re-tested/repostulated. ID can only be postulated. Until an idea can go through steps b-e, it's not science and should be in a comparative religion or philosophy course.
ID is counting angels on the head of a pin.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269492 - 14/11/2005 19:38
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan. I have no problem with that. However, that's not science.
I can't speak for our residents (or, rather, I'll allow them to speak for themselves, as I'm about to put words in everyone else's mouth), but I think that the reason they don't do that is that they see evolution as being at odds with what they believe and are using this as an opportunity to chip away at evolution. The ones who believe as you state, and I think that there are many of them, aren't the ones arguing to get fairy tales taught in the science classroom.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269493 - 14/11/2005 20:03
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Not being what most people would call a 'deeply religous' person, it's my speculation that the core issue is that stance that the bible is a definative, inerratic text. I can understand a belief that one's god (whatever that may be) is infallible, but this type of dogmatism implies that the interpretation of fact as written by man is flawless. If I can believe anything universal, it's that man is flawed, so I have trouble with this argument of strict interpretation (aside from the fact that every society has a creation myth and proving one over the other is another exercise in angel-counting).
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269494 - 14/11/2005 20:31
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Really though, it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan.
Actually, as I've stated before, theistic evolution is quite consistent with ID. It is, however, not consistent with the beliefs of most Creationists, which are generally more specific than the very broad tent of ID. I assume if the ID camp is successful at getting ID into schools then theistic evolution would have to be addressed as an accpetable part of the overall theory.
Quote:
The issue (as stated so well above) is that to be in a science class a theory has to be something that can be a)postulated b)tested c)confirmed d)modified e)re-tested/repostulated.
The theory that man evolved from another animal cannot go through those steps either. The notion of evolution itself can, but that it actually did so with regards to humans (or any other animal for that matter) is another story. From a science only standpoint it could make sense that humans evolved, but it doesn't necessarily follow. That along with my non-scientific beliefs cause me to question the claim that mankind was created through evolution.
I believe ID propoents take this same reasoning (that the actual occurance of man evolving from other animals cannot be proven) to say that while you cannot prove God exists through testing and observation, you can extrapolate given things we know from science to prove that He does, in fact, exist. I'm not extremely well educated in ID, though, so I could have mangled that argument beyond recognition.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269495 - 14/11/2005 20:43
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Not being what most people would call a 'deeply religous' person, it's my speculation that the core issue is that stance that the bible is a definative, inerratic text.
You are correct.
Quote:
I can understand a belief that one's god (whatever that may be) is infallible, but this type of dogmatism implies that the interpretation of fact as written by man is flawless. If I can believe anything universal, it's that man is flawed, so I have trouble with this argument of strict interpretation
The belief is that scripture is "God breathed", meaning that while the indivdiual authors may have written it in their own styles, God gave them the content.
This belief only relates to the origional texts, however. It is not assumed that copies and translations are inerrint. Thus there is some debate about a few passages that don't appear in some of the earlier texts. However, the most important doctrines are re-iterated many times throughout scripture leaving very little room to speculate if they were in the origional text.
The notion of man's fall into sin and need for redemption is very central to much of the teaching of the Bible, and this is why the Creation doctrine is so important.
My personal stance, however, is that while I agree that the Creation story is signficant, it is nowhere near as important as Jesus death on the cross as a solution to the problem of sin. I am fully willing to accept Christians who believe differently than I do about evolution and let the Holy Spirit sort us out.
I am also not one to argue for the inclusion of ID in schools, though I would like to see the creation of mankind by evolution NOT be taught in schools. I'd prefer the whole issue not be addressed at all as long as the education is public and provided by the government.
edited so my meaning of "evolution in schools" is more clear
Edited by JeffS (14/11/2005 23:15)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269496 - 14/11/2005 21:13
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
I am also not one to argue for the inclusion of ID in schools, though I would like to see evolution NOT be taught in schools. I'd prefer the whole issue not be addressed at all as long as the education is public and provided by the government.
This is an interesting angle on the debate. Question 1: is it appropriate to teach comparative religion courses, cultural studies courses, and so forth? Question 2: is it appropriate to teach the science of biology?
I'll argue that Q1 is entirely appropriate for public schools. How can you study history without understanding the religious motives that have driven it? There's no way to understand the Crusades without understanding the Crusaders. Similar themes drive many recent political issues (see, e.g., Catholic v. Protestant Ireland, Pakistan v. India, Sunni v. Shiite Arabs, etc.). The trick is to study religion, dispationately, as part of the belief systems of the people who act throughout history, rather than as something that is "true" or "false".
I'll also argue that Q2 is obviously appropriate for public schools. Every student should learn basic mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, among other things. And, you cannot even begin to properly study biology without understanding evolution. Learning biology without evolution is akin to learning computer science without programming. Yeah, you might learn some valuable things, but programming is what makes it all go. The problem, for some Christians, is that the centrality of evolution to biology (combined with the increasingly obvious presence of biological engineering in our daily lives) seems to threaten their religious beliefs. You seem to be able to reconcile evolution with your own beliefs. I'd expect that others could make similar accomodations, but it's surprising how they instead try to attack evolution with flakey arguments.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269497 - 14/11/2005 21:24
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Well, the issue with evolutionary biology is that it is truly a basic scientific underpinning (funny how a monk did some of the early work, isn't it?) of molecular biology. While we can't prove man evolves because it would be immoral to do the experiment, it can be proven that every other species we experiment on can be forced to evolve based on natural selection, so I can't see how you can exclude man from the theory just because we don't experiment on our own species. Which gene is the non-evolution gene anyway?
Regarding your statement about not teaching evolution; simply because science contradicts the teaching of a church (albeit a big one) should not mean that a portion of science should not be taught. Were that the case astrophysics would not exist.
Science can prove nor disprove existence of a god (although it's an amusing rhetorical exercise). People should not try to let their view of a god prove nor disprove science theories. Science should prove or disprove scientific theories. That is its core nature. That's what science is, a process for evaluating thoughts by testing them. When a more scientifically sound theory than natural selection and evolution comes around (imho, not likely in my lifetime) then scientific theory will change, as it always has. More correct theories are persuasive in their measurable and quantifiable experimental results. ID can neither be quantified nor measured.
Relativity is a theory, but we had to modify the math of the GPS to take it into account in order to make the system work correctly.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269498 - 14/11/2005 21:50
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: FireFox31]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Here's my belief, which I feel is the perfect, most elegant marriage of science and faith (aka: religion)
Not good enough, I am affraid. Determinism will not do with those believers who build their worldview (and view of selves) around the most curious concept of original sin and the subsequent need to be saved by a benevolent deity who used to aggravate Pontius Pilate's migraines. In order to Fall properly, Man had to be able to choose to sin, hadn't he?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269499 - 14/11/2005 21:58
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
And, in fact, there are well established theories that, in part, disagree with Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium being a notable example. However, all of those, even the most extreme of them, are really just refinements of the basic theory of evolution that Darwin set down a hundred and fifty years ago. It used to be that scientific theories were thrown out of the window when a better one came along, but in modern times, it seems that we are getting closer and closer to the truth, rather than hitting random spots.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269500 - 14/11/2005 22:38
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
As Dan and Zeke pointed out, if we throw out the evolution, we are throwing out all of biology, almost all of medicine, good part of agriculture - from high-yield crops, to vaccines, to antibiotics, to Angel's painkillers. If this anti-science (or better, anti-reason) madness does not stop, how much untill the next Giordano Bruno? This thread made me trully depressed... As for the reason for this well organized assault by Western Talibans, look no further than slogans from '1984'
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269501 - 14/11/2005 22:48
My take...
[Re: FireFox31]
|
addict
Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
|
Okay so I've read this thread, and I read pretty much all other threads where everyone debates pretty vigourosly about ID vs. evolution / God vs. fsm. I read these threads and wikipedia and whatever else happens to come up to try to get a better understanding of all this crazyness. I just recently saw that What the Bleep Do We Know movie which didn't impress me too much (I even saw it 1.5 times). I was raised a muslim in a very modern and increasingly anti-religion environment. When I was taking biology courses in high school and college a few years ago the whole debate part of evolution vs. religion didn't even really occur to me. I guess I just saw evolution as another scientific principal that helped explain a whole bunch of crap...pretty convincingly. I guess I believe in evolution. It really does make sense when you look at the facts and the evidence and whanot. As I understand it, the current theory of our existence is something along the lines of: Big Bang >> Lotsa Time >> Earth with bacteria and random minute forms of life >> evolution >> here we are. However, having understood and in large part accepted all of this, I'm still not willing to let go of my faith in God. 1) Because I accept that believing in God takes FAITH. I mean, they call it a faith for a reason right? 2) And this is the point of my post, I don't understand why the two can't co-exist. Why can't evolution be a part of God's plan? And the larger question I have is regarding the actual creation of the universe. Mainly, what was there before the big bang? What was there before the extremely dense and hot state?. When did things start heating up and how, why? How did that state get there? Why is it that time suddently started there and isn't saying that time started at the beginning of the universe a pretty convenient way to not have to explain everthing before the singularity or whateva? Did gases and electrons and protons and neutrinos and random things I know very little about appear out of thin air? Was there nothing at some point? Emptiness? How far back does physics/science take us? When I think about this stuff, I get to a point where my brain can't process the concept any more and I'm just sort of blank -- usually when I get to the emptiness concept. I can't think of any other subject that leads to this feeling. Creepy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#269502 - 14/11/2005 23:10
Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Well, the issue with evolutionary biology is that it is truly a basic scientific underpinning (funny how a monk did some of the early work, isn't it?) of molecular biology. While we can't prove man evolves because it would be immoral to do the experiment, it can be proven that every other species we experiment on can be forced to evolve based on natural selection, so I can't see how you can exclude man from the theory just because we don't experiment on our own species. Which gene is the non-evolution gene anyway?
You're missing my point, I think. I haven't said that man does not evolve, only that man was not created by evolution. The problem for Christians has to do with Creation, not how we continue to progress.
As I look back at my earlier post, I see where I made a mistake. I did not mean to say that schools shouldn't teach evolution- rather that they should not teach that evolution is how we arrived on the scene. It is very possible to study how things progress without assuming we know how they got here.
Quote:
Science can prove nor disprove existence of a god
I agree, which is why I'm not an ID proponent. That doesn't mean you can't know that God exists- only that science isn't the way to that knowledge (though I believe it can help, right along with the rest of Creation).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index