Science and Theology, the sequel

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/12/2008 05:58:03 AM · #526

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.

No, I think the point is that teaching one, and only one religion is just indoctrination. Teaching comparitive religion and allowing them to make choices as they come to understand the differences would actually be teaching.

Children are taught religion primarily at home or their respective religion's place of worship. Public school doesn't do it. Private, religious schools do, but they are extensions of the place of worship. Consequently, what is taught is one religion, if anything is taught. I would suspect that in many homes a kind of general morality is taught rather than religion, per se, unless religion is central to a given family's worldview. Maybe some informal comparative religion is taught in the nature of "Why is Jared Mormon?" asked at the dinner table. I doubt too many non-LDS parents are really prepared to answer that question. Public schools wouldn't touch that question and, given the Constitutional separation of church and state issues, they really can't.

But how about some non-religious or quasi-religious subjects? Do you take the same route with, say, evolution and intelligent design. Teach them both or a comparative evaluation of them and allow the children to make choices as they come to understand the differences. Wouldn't that also be actually teaching, to use your approach? (Be careful how you answer this now. You might prove DrAchoo's point, above.)

Or how about history? It is often said that history is written by the victors. At least at the public school level that is pretty much what goes on, with exceptions where local feelings run deep. My example of the latter is the American Civil War. It's taught differently if you live in the South than if you live in the North. I moved from North to South in high school and had the dubious pleasure of getting US history twice because the school systems had Us and World history in the opposite order. Roman history, though is pretty much the same everywhere...and there isn't much taught about Carthage other than Hannibal and the Elephant march.

Teaching comparative religion is usually reserved for college level. Public schools barely have time to cover what they teach now. Adding the additional information implied in a comparative course in any subject would probably swamp them. (After all, how many teaching hours can you expend on the Carthaginians and every other group that came up short on the history timeline?)

(The time zone is forcing me to bed, too. The sun is probably already above the horizon on the east coast. Good morning. I'll catch up when my night is done in about 6 hours.)

Message edited by author 2008-04-12 06:59:41.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/12/2008 09:33:18 AM · #527

Originally posted by chalice:

But how about some non-religious or quasi-religious subjects? Do you take the same route with, say, evolution and intelligent design. Teach them both or a comparative evaluation of them and allow the children to make choices as they come to understand the differences. Wouldn't that also be actually teaching, to use your approach? (Be careful how you answer this now. You might prove DrAchoo's point, above.)

Or how about history? It is often said that history is written by the victors. At least at the public school level that is pretty much what goes on, with exceptions where local feelings run deep. My example of the latter is the American Civil War. It's taught differently if you live in the South than if you live in the North. I moved from North to South in high school and had the dubious pleasure of getting US history twice because the school systems had Us and World history in the opposite order. Roman history, though is pretty much the same everywhere...and there isn't much taught about Carthage other than Hannibal and the Elephant march.

That's a good questions. When it comes to matters of science, I will endeavor to teach my daughter that science is not static, and is open to review and revision. Evolution is widely accepted and there is a lot of evidence to support it, but the theory will likely change over time (to what degree we don't know). To me, that's the important thing about science, it acknowledges what it doesn't know.

As for religion (into which I include Intelligent Design), I will also teach her to the best of my abilities what different people believe. I will not shield her from that information, and will most likely seek out other sources for her to learn from (such as Sunday school, as one instance). To me there is a very specific difference between science and religion. Science seeks to explain the observable, while religion seeks to explain the non-observable. So, they should naturally be treated differenlty. But her ability to succeed in the world and make her own decisions and develop her own belief system will be dependent upon her having as much information as possible.

If she decides to be devoutly religious, I will not have any problem with that. If she decides to blindly follow other people without her own critical thinking, then I will be very disappointed in myself.

04/12/2008 11:02:19 AM · #528

Originally posted by chalice:

Very bad example. You don't teach comparitive scientific methodologies do you? Such a thing doesn't exist. Leaving aside the obvious political motivations that people have for teaching "intelligent design", the teaching of comparative religion and scientific method are in no way alike. I'd like to see the state of your country after twenty years of something like, "Ok kids, there's this kind of science espoused by these people, and there's this kind of science espoused by these people. Which do you choose?"

04/12/2008 11:49:52 AM · #529

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:
Parents should have to pass a test qualifying them to raise children, proving they have the "mind set" to teach this level of personal responsibility.

I know you never answer this, but I live in hope. How are you going to enforce that test ? What happens when they fail the test ?

I certainly expected a comment or two about this sentence. Simply because something "should" be the case, doesn't mean it "will" be the case, nor that it is even a possibility. That in and of itself, doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a sound idea, in its theoritical form. If and when such an action was testable and enforceable, then we could discuss its implementation. In the meantime, it is merely a "should".

04/12/2008 11:58:37 AM · #530

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Matthew:
No an atheist - as a consequence I can eat anything without worrying for my eternal soul.

My point is that if you believe in god, why would you take the chance on something central to a major world religion (akin to Pascal's wager)?

Then I guess your response was directed at Flash, since although I haven't directly placed myself in a camp, I think it's pretty obvious which team I'm swinging for.

yes!

In the new testament there is a discourse that involves the eating of certain foods and whether or not it is sinful. The essence of that discourse lies in; there is nothing that is impure to consume, however if your eating something is an offense to your guests/hosts, then refraining from that food is OK as well.

In other words, if I was dining with Hindus - out of respect for their beliefs I would refrain from ordering foods that were offensive to them. Otherwise I can eat anything I want - providing I give thanks for it first. And I truly give thanks for a good cut of Prime Rib.

as and aside - having attempted to eat beef in the UK, I fully understand why you may not find it too good.

04/12/2008 12:22:32 PM · #531

Originally posted by Flash:

In other words, if I was dining with Hindus - out of respect for their beliefs I would refrain from ordering foods that were offensive to them. Otherwise I can eat anything I want - providing I give thanks for it first.

I think the point was that, since there's no way for you to know which god you're offending by your actions, you're better off not offending any of them, Ã la Pascal. I would think it's meant to show the absurdity of all such religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise.

chalice

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/12/2008 02:33:50 PM · #532

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
But how about some non-religious or quasi-religious subjects? Do you take the same route with, say, evolution and intelligent design. Teach them both or a comparative evaluation of them and allow the children to make choices as they come to understand the differences. Wouldn't that also be actually teaching, to use your approach? (Be careful how you answer this now. You might prove DrAchoo's point, above.)

Very bad example. You don't teach comparitive scientific methodologies do you? Such a thing doesn't exist. Leaving aside the obvious political motivations that people have for teaching "intelligent design", the teaching of comparative religion and scientific method are in no way alike. I'd like to see the state of your country after twenty years of something like, "Ok kids, there's this kind of science espoused by these people, and there's this kind of science espoused by these people. Which do you choose?"

It seems to me you are arguing just what DrAchoo claimed, ie. you think the evolution / intelligent design comparative science subject is a bad example because (speaking of comparative scientific methodologies) "such a thing does not exist", which is the rough equivalent to "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." Both of those statements assume a conclusion (with which one may or may not agree) rather than permitting a more open inquiry into the respective subjects. My point is not to say whether either of those statements is accurate or not, but to point out that when it comes to religion the argument is "let's make it a comparative study so children can see several different ways of looking at the subject with the hope that they will determine what works for them when they are adults" while when it comes to science (at least evolution and origins of the universe) the argument is "Intelligent Design is dumb, it's not even science, so we should ignore it in favor of this other theory called evolution."

Your answer also seems to skirt the example I proposed by going to "scientific methodologies". My example is not about methodologies. It's about content. Proponents of Intelligent Design (as near as I can tell; I haven't read much of this stuff) seek to look at the world around them, measure various phenomena such as the extremely fine tolerances of gravity, magnetic fields and whatnot needed to support life as we know it and suggest that the data demonstrate that intelligent design is a plausible theory of origins. They also look at the fossil record, see what they think are inconsistencies or gaps in that record to challenge the prevailing theory of evolution. Seems to me this is what science is about - questioning the status quo by presenting theoretical alternatives based upon measurable data. One can always say their science is flawed or that the data don't support their theory, as that is what entrenched scientists do when they support the prevailing theory against all competing theories. (That is, after all, how we got from the "steady state" to the "big bang" theory of the origin of the universe.)

When it comes to astrophysics, theoretical physics, advanced math, etc., I don't see what is so different between arguing the mathematics of string theory or loop origins to suggest an eternally existing universe on the one hand and arguing infinitesimally small tolerances in basic life-sustaining forces to suggest a Creator or creative force, on the other hand. It's all science, and very theoretical at that, and each position should have its place in the sun to prove or disprove whatever theory is involved.

Teaching only one of the theories, without giving so much as a "minority position" nod in the classroom is rather like the revolving sun people smothering the revolving earth people in the age of Galileo. Entrenched people, scientists included, tend to want to limit the debate when their position is challenged. The vaunted "falsifiable" principal of science always has to fight an uphill battle. As long as it is "steady state" vs. "big bang" the debate is heated but the playing field is level. When I went to school both theories were in the science books. When it comes to "evolution" and "intelligent design" the same heated but level playing field attitude is missing. Just because one group of proponents has a religious view that is consistent with their scientific theory, does not make the theory "religious". It is still science. Good science or flawed science is what the argument should be about. And teaching one while smothering the other is not what science should be about, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

(Note: I am on record as saying that I have no problem with evolution, even though I am not totally convinced that the fossil record is fully established yet. It does not threaten my religious views. I haven't spent much time with the "science" of ID but you can't read many books in this area without bumping into it from time to time.)

04/12/2008 03:23:15 PM · #533

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
In other words, if I was dining with Hindus - out of respect for their beliefs I would refrain from ordering foods that were offensive to them. Otherwise I can eat anything I want - providing I give thanks for it first.

I think the point was that, since there's no way for you to know which god you're offending by your actions, you're better off not offending any of them, Ã la Pascal. I would think it's meant to show the absurdity of all such religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise.

I couldn't possibly know what you mean by "religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise". Do you mean coveting another man's wife/partner? Do you mean failing to honor one's father/mother? Do you mean restrictions on anger/vengence? Or calls for a charitable heart? Are these the kinds of "absurdities" you mean?

Matthew is a big boy, I'll let him answer for himself.

04/12/2008 03:40:14 PM · #534

Originally posted by eqsite:

If she decides to be devoutly religious, I will not have any problem with that. If she decides to blindly follow other people without her own critical thinking, then I will be very disappointed in myself.

As you should be. However, that is exactly what has been ascribed to the first followers of Christ and subsequently the early christians. It has been suggested that they were all (in fact we all are) blindly stupid people incapable of "seeing" the truth that only the enlightened atheist armed with scientific reason/proof is able to understand. You may not hold it against your daughter if she were to become a "believer" - but that is not the position of many of the postings in the previous 70+ pages of this thread. Believers are held in disdain, with their ability to "reason" seriously questioned.

I may agree with the athiests point that their main concern is with over-reaching zealots who wish to impose ideals upon them to which they do not ascribe. However, I would caution them, on concluding that "believers" are too stupid to see the "atheist's" truth.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/12/2008 05:04:48 PM · #535

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
In other words, if I was dining with Hindus - out of respect for their beliefs I would refrain from ordering foods that were offensive to them. Otherwise I can eat anything I want - providing I give thanks for it first.

I think the point was that, since there's no way for you to know which god you're offending by your actions, you're better off not offending any of them, Ã la Pascal. I would think it's meant to show the absurdity of all such religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise.

I couldn't possibly know what you mean by "religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise". Do you mean coveting another man's wife/partner? Do you mean failing to honor one's father/mother? Do you mean restrictions on anger/vengence? Or calls for a charitable heart? Are these the kinds of "absurdities" you mean?

Matthew is a big boy, I'll let him answer for himself.

Hindu's hold cows to be sacred. By eating cows, you risk offense to Hindu Gods. If they happen to exist. If you are in to believing in God's, then pascal's wager, would tend to say that picking the path that offends the least, would be the best option. I.e., not eating prime rib. But if you are certain that God exists and certain you've happened to bet on the right one, then it doesn't much matter.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/12/2008 08:12:21 PM · #536

Originally posted by chalice:

It seems to me you are arguing just what DrAchoo claimed...

I rather think you were just waiting for a reply so you could offer this answer. ;) But no matter. I can't really converse with anyone on this topic who gives credence to "intelligent design".

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/12/2008 08:19:44 PM · #537

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
But how about some non-religious or quasi-religious subjects? Do you take the same route with, say, evolution and intelligent design. Teach them both or a comparative evaluation of them and allow the children to make choices as they come to understand the differences. Wouldn't that also be actually teaching, to use your approach? (Be careful how you answer this now. You might prove DrAchoo's point, above.)

Very bad example. You don't teach comparitive scientific methodologies do you? Such a thing doesn't exist. Leaving aside the obvious political motivations that people have for teaching "intelligent design", the teaching of comparative religion and scientific method are in no way alike. I'd like to see the state of your country after twenty years of something like, "Ok kids, there's this kind of science espoused by these people, and there's this kind of science espoused by these people. Which do you choose?"

It seems to me you are arguing just what DrAchoo claimed, ie. you think the evolution / intelligent design comparative science subject is a bad example because (speaking of comparative scientific methodologies) "such a thing does not exist", which is the rough equivalent to "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." Both of those statements assume a conclusion (with which one may or may not agree) rather than permitting a more open inquiry into the respective subjects. My point is not to say whether either of those statements is accurate or not, but to point out that when it comes to religion the argument is "let's make it a comparative study so children can see several different ways of looking at the subject with the hope that they will determine what works for them when they are adults" while when it comes to science (at least evolution and origins of the universe) the argument is "Intelligent Design is dumb, it's not even science, so we should ignore it in favor of this other theory called evolution."

Your answer also seems to skirt the example I proposed by going to "scientific methodologies". My example is not about methodologies. It's about content. Proponents of Intelligent Design (as near as I can tell; I haven't read much of this stuff) seek to look at the world around them, measure various phenomena such as the extremely fine tolerances of gravity, magnetic fields and whatnot needed to support life as we know it and suggest that the data demonstrate that intelligent design is a plausible theory of origins. They also look at the fossil record, see what they think are inconsistencies or gaps in that record to challenge the prevailing theory of evolution. Seems to me this is what science is about - questioning the status quo by presenting theoretical alternatives based upon measurable data. One can always say their science is flawed or that the data don't support their theory, as that is what entrenched scientists do when they support the prevailing theory against all competing theories. (That is, after all, how we got from the "steady state" to the "big bang" theory of the origin of the universe.)

When it comes to astrophysics, theoretical physics, advanced math, etc., I don't see what is so different between arguing the mathematics of string theory or loop origins to suggest an eternally existing universe on the one hand and arguing infinitesimally small tolerances in basic life-sustaining forces to suggest a Creator or creative force, on the other hand. It's all science, and very theoretical at that, and each position should have its place in the sun to prove or disprove whatever theory is involved.

Teaching only one of the theories, without giving so much as a "minority position" nod in the classroom is rather like the revolving sun people smothering the revolving earth people in the age of Galileo. Entrenched people, scientists included, tend to want to limit the debate when their position is challenged. The vaunted "falsifiable" principal of science always has to fight an uphill battle. As long as it is "steady state" vs. "big bang" the debate is heated but the playing field is level. When I went to school both theories were in the science books. When it comes to "evolution" and "intelligent design" the same heated but level playing field attitude is missing. Just because one group of proponents has a religious view that is consistent with their scientific theory, does not make the theory "religious". It is still science. Good science or flawed science is what the argument should be about. And teaching one while smothering the other is not what science should be about, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

(Note: I am on record as saying that I have no problem with evolution, even though I am not totally convinced that the fossil record is fully established yet. It does not threaten my religious views. I haven't spent much time with the "science" of ID but you can't read many books in this area without bumping into it from time to time.)

Intelligent Design is the astrology of today. In other words it's nonsense masquerading as science.

Look for peer reviewed papers in established scientific journals that support I.D. I doubt you'll find more than a few, if any.

chalice

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/13/2008 06:46:05 AM · #538

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
It seems to me you are arguing just what DrAchoo claimed...

I rather think you were just waiting for a reply so you could offer this answer. ;) But no matter. I can't really converse with anyone on this topic who gives credence to "intelligent design".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You are probably right, Louis, when you say that ID is a bad example. But at the same time, I think your and Spazmo99's reaction to the idea of ID tends to support the point I was so clumbsily trying to make. Instead of discussing ID, you can't even bring yourself to talk about it and to Spazmo99 it is not even science.

Actually, Intelligent Design (as a theory, rather than the political movement) is science -- just flawed science. It put together a series of examples of "apparent" flaws in evolution (the eye and bacterial flagellum being two noteworthy examples) coupled with the idea that evolution couldn't handle the notion of "irreducible complexity" and probability theory to support the idea that intelligent design was behind the origin of the universe. While the proponents of ID initially came up with plausible arguments, science has more recently made inroads that suggest that those examples don't prove what the ID scientists first believed to be true. That is, ID is beginning to crumble under the weight of the new evidence, and few scientists give the idea much credence. (That is why it makes a bad example.)

But until it is completely disproved (which is probably not too far away) it still deserves a minor mention if only to demonstrate that evolution is not above question.

(Note: I will again state that I don't think that either of these theories is any threat to religious teachings. The greater failure of ID, I think, may be that it ended up being seized upon by those who wanted to make a political issue out of it and in that context its impending demise makes it look like God needs science to prop him up, when such is not the case.

Whatever scientific theory or process ends up being proven as true is, in the end, only one of many examples of the genius of God, whose infinite mind conceived of and implemented so grand a process. If it is true that God exists, he has nothing to fear from the pursuit of scientific truth. Truth is supported by truth in all of its permutations. Religion and science should be peacably exploring the same great mysteries in a complementary way, with each doing what it does best. After all, why should religion or science care what the outcome is when they don't actually seek to answer quite the same questions. Science is not shortchanged if a Creator set the universe in motion. Religion is not harmed if the Genesis account is deemed to be allegorical rather than literal. Let me put it pragmatically. If upon my death I am face to face with God and he chooses to reveal to me, among other things, that Genesis was intended to be an allegorical way of expressing a profound truth about the fallen nature of man, and that his genius was to create a evolutionary process that was so grand that pre-scientific humankind couldn't handle the scope of it, making the allegory appropriate, is it going to make one iota of difference to me then? I think not. The enormity of being in the presence of God will make all of this seem so trifling at that point. Religion is about humankind's relationship to and with a loving God, with an eternity to express that relationship. Science, as useful as it is, doesn't begin to approach that topic.)

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/13/2008 10:31:08 AM · #539

Originally posted by chalice:

Actually, Intelligent Design (as a theory, rather than the political movement) is science -- just flawed science.

You keepa using dat word. I dunna think it means what you think it means. Be very careful when you use the loaded word "theory" in a discussion of science and religion. "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." ID does not meet the definition of scientific theory OR scientific method. Therefore, it's NOT science and these guys are quite right in dismissing it as such. This aspect of ID was thoroughly examined in the Dover School Board case a few years ago:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
"IDâ��s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.""

If you watch the trial, you'll see that the evidence for evolution is quite compelling.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/13/2008 10:50:14 AM · #540

Originally posted by chalice:

It's not "flawed science" it isn't science. It is actually anti-scientific. ID is simply the latest attempt to get creationism taught in public schools or cast doubt on evolution generally. The fact that so many people can be fooled into thinking that it is scientific represents how poorly the education system has handled science education and critical thinking skills.

National Center for Science Education (Statement as to why ID should not be taught in science classes.)

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics (Looking at the weakness of ID from the perspective of physics.)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Review of pro-ID movie Expelled, with a good discussion of evolutionary theory's openness to authentic, science-based criticism.)

Devolution: Why Intelligent Design Isn't

Design Yes, Intellligent No

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Message edited by author 2008-04-13 11:23:24.

04/13/2008 11:09:53 AM · #541

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
In other words, if I was dining with Hindus - out of respect for their beliefs I would refrain from ordering foods that were offensive to them. Otherwise I can eat anything I want - providing I give thanks for it first.

I think the point was that, since there's no way for you to know which god you're offending by your actions, you're better off not offending any of them, Ã la Pascal. I would think it's meant to show the absurdity of all such religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise.

I couldn't possibly know what you mean by "religious restrictions, gastronomic or otherwise". Do you mean coveting another man's wife/partner? Do you mean failing to honor one's father/mother? Do you mean restrictions on anger/vengence? Or calls for a charitable heart? Are these the kinds of "absurdities" you mean?

Matthew is a big boy, I'll let him answer for himself.

Hindu's hold cows to be sacred. By eating cows, you risk offense to Hindu Gods. If they happen to exist. If you are in to believing in God's, then pascal's wager, would tend to say that picking the path that offends the least, would be the best option. I.e., not eating prime rib. But if you are certain that God exists and certain you've happened to bet on the right one, then it doesn't much matter.

So your (or Pascal's) argument is for any God believer to essentially believe that all Gods could exist, therefore don't risk offending any of them. Pretty hard to do, when faced with the charge of "There is only one God and you shall have no other God's before him". Either I offend the Hindu God by eating beef or the Father of my Savior by believing that his words regarding all food is good, was not really accurate.

Since risk in inherrent no matter what your belief, I'm pretty comfortable with mine.

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/13/2008 11:23:02 AM · #542

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

This is an excellent quick reference for those who aren't quite familiar with evolution.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/13/2008 07:52:51 PM · #543

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
It seems to me you are arguing just what DrAchoo claimed...

I rather think you were just waiting for a reply so you could offer this answer. ;) But no matter. I can't really converse with anyone on this topic who gives credence to "intelligent design".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Intelligent Design is the astrology of today. In other words it's nonsense masquerading as science.

Look for peer reviewed papers in established scientific journals that support I.D. I doubt you'll find more than a few, if any.

You are probably right, Louis, when you say that ID is a bad example. But at the same time, I think your and Spazmo99's reaction to the idea of ID tends to support the point I was so clumbsily trying to make. Instead of discussing ID, you can't even bring yourself to talk about it and to Spazmo99 it is not even science.

Actually, Intelligent Design (as a theory, rather than the political movement) is science -- just flawed science. It put together a series of examples of "apparent" flaws in evolution (the eye and bacterial flagellum being two noteworthy examples) coupled with the idea that evolution couldn't handle the notion of "irreducible complexity" and probability theory to support the idea that intelligent design was behind the origin of the universe. While the proponents of ID initially came up with plausible arguments, science has more recently made inroads that suggest that those examples don't prove what the ID scientists first believed to be true. That is, ID is beginning to crumble under the weight of the new evidence, and few scientists give the idea much credence. (That is why it makes a bad example.)

But until it is completely disproved (which is probably not too far away) it still deserves a minor mention if only to demonstrate that evolution is not above question.

(Note: I will again state that I don't think that either of these theories is any threat to religious teachings. The greater failure of ID, I think, may be that it ended up being seized upon by those who wanted to make a political issue out of it and in that context its impending demise makes it look like God needs science to prop him up, when such is not the case.

Whatever scientific theory or process ends up being proven as true is, in the end, only one of many examples of the genius of God, whose infinite mind conceived of and implemented so grand a process. If it is true that God exists, he has nothing to fear from the pursuit of scientific truth. Truth is supported by truth in all of its permutations. Religion and science should be peacably exploring the same great mysteries in a complementary way, with each doing what it does best. After all, why should religion or science care what the outcome is when they don't actually seek to answer quite the same questions. Science is not shortchanged if a Creator set the universe in motion. Religion is not harmed if the Genesis account is deemed to be allegorical rather than literal. Let me put it pragmatically. If upon my death I am face to face with God and he chooses to reveal to me, among other things, that Genesis was intended to be an allegorical way of expressing a profound truth about the fallen nature of man, and that his genius was to create a evolutionary process that was so grand that pre-scientific humankind couldn't handle the scope of it, making the allegory appropriate, is it going to make one iota of difference to me then? I think not. The enormity of being in the presence of God will make all of this seem so trifling at that point. Religion is about humankind's relationship to and with a loving God, with an eternity to express that relationship. Science, as useful as it is, doesn't begin to approach that topic.)

No, ID is not "flawed" science it's just not science at all.

Show me peer reviewed papers by respected scientists that suggest ID as plausible.

pixelpig

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 1.8/50mm SAM

04/13/2008 11:02:28 PM · #544

A thought. I have a co-worker (we both work in broadband internet tech support) who I've noticed does not like hypothetical questions. She likes things explained once & she prefers to not have that first explanation questioned, even hypothetically. She is also a firm Christian. So, I was thinking...if an individual has a preference for learning things once & a disinclination to question authority, then would that individual not also feel comfortable w/religious faith? And have a tendency to stick w/the first religious faith? And feel deeply suspicious & maybe even defensive toward people who have a tendency to question authority & accepted beliefs?

And (another thought) is not Science a form of faith? Have you ever actually seen light itself? or the electrons that make electricity work?