Intelligent Design - Page 12

**CingularDuality** · 10-11-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Well that's the rub right there. We're talking about the existance of a being who transcends "evidence", not being subject to, but the creator of, space and time. I think we're going to be stuck with either believing or not without supporting documentation or excuses. You and I are and will remain completely free to believe as we please.

Right, that's why I said "blind faith".

**leejo** · 10-11-2005, 01:26 PM

Right. That's what you say. I say there's plenty to see if you look the right way, and plenty to hear if you listen carefully. No "evidence" but that would remove your personal responsibility for the decision you make.

**CingularDuality** · 10-11-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Right. That's what you say. I say there's plenty to see if you look the right way, and plenty to hear if you listen carefully. No "evidence" but that would remove your personal responsibility for the decision you make.

Personal responsibility? We're not talking about accepting jesus into our hearts, we're talking about whether or not a higher power even exists.

If all you can offer is the way you feel, then, well, I win. Argument over.

**leejo** · 10-11-2005, 01:36 PM

God: hey Michael, this guy Cingular just decided I don't exist
Michael: bummer, Sir. Shall I clear your schedule?

**marstein** · 10-12-2005, 01:57 PM

an article on the subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...619264,00.html

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

**leejo** · 10-12-2005, 02:47 PM

That's fine, and I agree with the assessment about science, but why do you say Creationism is a gift to the ignorant? Am I ignorant? What are your qualifications to make that statement?

My problem in this debate isn't that science is bad, but there are a lot of folks here who arrogantly dismiss others' beliefs and rudely categorize their intelligence as if they had the right or position of *demonstrated* intellectual superiority.

It's unbecoming.

Infrequent Visitor · 10-17-2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkstar68

Amen - Also, if "creationism" is so important to the believers - would you really want to rely on a public school teacher to get it right? I mean, somethings just shoult taught at home.

There's the real heart of the true issue here. What should we be teaching in school?

Science. Good science. Useful science. Do we need to teach ANY form of origins in school? NO.

But I can't get away from the theory of evolution. I took a human anatomy and physiology class recently. The text book kept refering to how this structure or that process evolved over millions of years. Why? Were those interjections necesary for me to undertand who your respiratory system works?

Just who is imposing what belief system on who?

I don't fear science. I embrase it. It has given us so much what we enjoy today. But it can't look into the mists of time and give me empirical answers. So don't tell me that it does.

You tell your kids what you want about how we got here. I'll tell mine what I want. Let's neither of us impose our beliefs on the other in the schools.

Infrequent Visitor · 10-17-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Surely there is a way to teach around the origins, and just go to the observable facts. Just get right to the Biology.

BINGO. Here's a person I could sit down and have a great cinversation with. We may have a lot of things we may end up agreeing to disagree on. But we could have some fabulous conversations.

Thanks, TG.

**marstein** · 10-17-2005, 01:42 AM

Infrequent - evolution is not a belief, it's a theory. It describes how life adapts to the environment. That is important to understand for many reasons. We can explain why many things are the way they are with evolution.
ID is a belief. If you take it as a theory it is VERY unlikely to be correct. The noodly apandage theory that Cingular promotes is just as likely. For that reason ID is useless to explain anything.
We teach how our nation was formed, and we teach how life originates.
In the US there is no religious education, so you should not teach believes. Evolution is part of biology and I think that is still taught.

Leejo - I think the problem is not that the evolutionists dismiss others beliefs. The problem is that the ID people want to put ID next to evolution - give them both the status as equally valid theories. And that is wrong.

Infrequent Visitor · 10-17-2005, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marstein

evolution is not a belief, it's a theory. It describes how life adapts to the environment. That is important to understand for many reasons. We can explain why many things are the way they are with evolution.
ID is a belief.

Part of the problem is just what do we want to apply this theory to. What we can see and measure today and compared to what we, or others in the past have seen, measured, and recorded using sound methods? Hey, that's good science. I am all for good science.

But can we admit that there is bad science out there on both sides of the evolution v creation debate? Remember the brontosaurus? How many hominids have been proven to be hoaxes?

My point is this. I accept as fact that which can be proven. Fact should be taught as such. But how frequently would we have to see new and beneficial mutations to account for the complexity and variety of life we see today? Any of you mathamaticians please weigh in. I went as far as calculus and only got a C in that...

We know a lot about how life works. We have even more to learn. But at the end of the day, knowing how a mitochondrion works, or the flagelum on a bacterium, or why it makes sense that black pepper moths (which there have always been) become more common than white pepper moths, doesn't prove empirically that all life evolved from simple single cell life.

I've done some of the same experements as the rest of you. I've look at the histology slides. I've diagramed the processes. But none of them showed me how things got to be the way they are. For that, you have to ascribe to something. Call it what you will: Theory, faith, belief, acceptance. We're into symantics at that point. Marstein, I've seen much of the same evidence you have seen. I remain unconvinced that evolution accounts for what I see. Evolution MAY explain it. I think it does not.

Lacking observations of new and beneficial mutations in nature; lacking transitional forms in the fossil record; lacking an adaquate theory for where the basic substance of the universe (energy) came from; I cannot accept the theory of evolution as a useful model for answering the questions posed in the discussion of origins. So I look for what I find to be a more useful model.

I am all for good science being taught in school. Lots of it. Along with the math you need to do good science. Lets get solid reading skills in there as well. Accurate history. Civics, literature, geography (to include some of the highlights of other cultures), grammar. (Yes, and spelling. Which is one of my weakest areas.) But Origins has no place in public schools. At least not in the science class room.

One more thing. I have seen a lot of theoloogy tossed back an forth in this thread, but I'm not going there. If some wants to start a theology thread and send me an invitation, I'll express my opinions on that subject there. But I must make one observation. Have you ever seen the gleam in an atheistic astronomer's eye when he talks about supernovas providing the heavy elements which compise the Earth? "We are star stuff!" And some people who read this will dismiss me as a religious nut because I don't accept evolution as an adaquate model of orgin.

**CingularDuality** · 10-17-2005, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infrequent Visitor

Remember the brontosaurus?

What about it? I've never seen a live one, but I'm interested in what your point was here...

Quote:

Lacking observations of new and beneficial mutations in nature; lacking transitional forms in the fossil record; lacking an adaquate theory for where the basic substance of the universe (energy) came from; I cannot accept the theory of evolution as a useful model for answering the questions posed in the discussion of origins. So I look for what I find to be a more useful model.

Does Occam's Razor not have a place here in deciding what gets taught? It's not infallible, but it is certainly logical, isn't it?

ScratchMonkey · 10-17-2005, 03:41 AM

Wikipedia has a fascinating page on Occam's Razor. Separate sections on evolution and creationism as well as lots of other interesting stuff.

ScratchMonkey · 10-17-2005, 03:42 AM

Hehe, CD posted simulataneously with me the same link.

ScratchMonkey · 10-17-2005, 03:44 AM

As noted on that page, the Razor is a heuristic, a means to choose from multiple answers that all explain a phenomenon. It's not "logical" in the sense that it can be proven, but instead a means for managing complexity in knowledge.

**CingularDuality** · 10-17-2005, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

As noted on that page, the Razor is a heuristic, a means to choose from multiple answers that all explain a phenomenon. It's not "logical" in the sense that it can be proven, but instead a means for managing complexity in knowledge.

Right, that's why I was careful to apply it not to choosing between beliefs, but rather to deciding what theories are taught in school.

10-11-2005, 01:26 PM	#167 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Intelligent Design Right. That's what you say. I say there's plenty to see if you look the right way, and plenty to hear if you listen carefully. No "evidence" but that would remove your personal responsibility for the decision you make.

10-11-2005, 01:36 PM	#169 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Intelligent Design God: hey Michael, this guy Cingular just decided I don't exist Michael: bummer, Sir. Shall I clear your schedule?

10-12-2005, 01:57 PM	#170 (permalink)
marstein Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Half Moon Bay, CA, USA Age: 42 Posts: 838	Re: Intelligent Design an article on the subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...619264,00.html Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. __________________ Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

10-12-2005, 02:47 PM	#171 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Intelligent Design That's fine, and I agree with the assessment about science, but why do you say Creationism is a gift to the ignorant? Am I ignorant? What are your qualifications to make that statement? My problem in this debate isn't that science is bad, but there are a lot of folks here who arrogantly dismiss others' beliefs and rudely categorize their intelligence as if they had the right or position of demonstrated intellectual superiority. It's unbecoming.

10-17-2005, 01:42 AM	#174 (permalink)
marstein Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Half Moon Bay, CA, USA Age: 42 Posts: 838	Re: Intelligent Design Infrequent - evolution is not a belief, it's a theory. It describes how life adapts to the environment. That is important to understand for many reasons. We can explain why many things are the way they are with evolution. ID is a belief. If you take it as a theory it is VERY unlikely to be correct. The noodly apandage theory that Cingular promotes is just as likely. For that reason ID is useless to explain anything. We teach how our nation was formed, and we teach how life originates. In the US there is no religious education, so you should not teach believes. Evolution is part of biology and I think that is still taught. Leejo - I think the problem is not that the evolutionists dismiss others beliefs. The problem is that the ID people want to put ID next to evolution - give them both the status as equally valid theories. And that is wrong. __________________ Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

10-17-2005, 03:41 AM	#177 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: Intelligent Design Wikipedia has a fascinating page on Occam's Razor. Separate sections on evolution and creationism as well as lots of other interesting stuff.

10-17-2005, 03:42 AM	#178 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: Intelligent Design Hehe, CD posted simulataneously with me the same link.

10-17-2005, 03:44 AM	#179 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: Intelligent Design As noted on that page, the Razor is a heuristic, a means to choose from multiple answers that all explain a phenomenon. It's not "logical" in the sense that it can be proven, but instead a means for managing complexity in knowledge.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Requesting a bit of design / photshop help	Wulfyn	General Discussion	9	01-17-2007 01:08 AM
Intelligent Design	Iceberg	Natural Selection - General Discussion	65	11-12-2006 12:52 AM
Tabard Design Contest Take Two- READ ME!	luna	World of Warcraft - General Discussion	20	04-28-2006 05:33 AM
Tabard Design Contest- A How-to Submission Guide	luna	World of Warcraft - General Discussion	0	03-23-2006 04:16 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links