Have you tried the holy books? Not sure if that would help, though. Worth a shot.
CS
I actually see ID as closer to evolution that creationism. Creationism deals with the actual initial origin of the universe, something ID and evolution don’t do. Evolution and ID both deal with how the world got to it’s present state AFTER there was already a world and universe.
In the strictest sense of the terms, ID and creationism are contradictory. Further, if you were to consider a higher power as a natural part of the behavior of the universe (like gravity), ID is evolution.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
From what you wrote above I do not think you understand my post.
I am saying teaching ID as science is dishonest. As in a valid scientific theory.[/quote]
I am going to side with Dr. Matt, he can correct me if I am wrong, that he does in fact teach ID.
I think the difference between the teaching he’s talking about and the teaching you’re talking about is that Dr. Matt is proposing a solution based on the evidence and facts, in this case evolution. It seems you’re talking about indoctrination (in which the only presentation of other solutions is done in a fallacious and illogical manner). I’ve had both teachers, ones that teach that if for a moment you doubt anything about evolution you should just leave the room and I’ve had the others who more or less proposes a solution (such as evolution) for the facts.
Yes, those who are not disinterested participants in the debate, having emotional investment into either side of the argument tend to demonize
the other side. This is nothing new. Bias should be accounted for in all instances.
Though, I have to admit that most creationist tend to be less well off educationally when it comes to this subject.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
From what you wrote above I do not think you understand my post.
I am saying teaching ID as science is dishonest. As in a valid scientific theory.[/quote]
I am going to side with Dr. Matt, he can correct me if I am wrong, that he does in fact teach ID.
I think the difference between the teaching he’s talking about and the teaching you’re talking about is that Dr. Matt is proposing a solution based on the evidence and facts, in this case evolution. It seems you’re talking about indoctrination (in which the only presentation of other solutions is done in a fallacious and illogical manner). I’ve had both teachers, ones that teach that if for a moment you doubt anything about evolution you should just leave the room and I’ve had the others who more or less proposes a solution (such as evolution) for the facts. [/quote]
Yes Chris, that is exactly what I am saying. Science is not about absolute facts and indoctrination like some people seem to think. One of the things that I teach my students is that we as scientists have a responsibility to continually question even the most widely accepted knowledge. Without questioning established knowledge, it is hard to make actual scientific progress. That being said, if you are going to question something like Classical Mechanics (which is what Einstein did), then you damn well better have a lot of scientific evidence to back up your claim. This is where creationism and ID fall short. They are big on pointing out gaps in knowledge in established theories on evolution, but mostly rely on philosophical and theological arguments to “prove” ID or creationism, but that will not work in the world of science. If Newton and his contemporaries had not done just that, we would not have Classical Mechanics as well as electricity and magnetism (thanks to Maxwell and others), which gives us every piece of advanced technology we have today. If Einstein and his contemporaries had not questioned established knowledge, we would not have the understanding of special relativity and quantum mechanics that we do, which we are on the verge of using the laws of which in order to create a new generation of technology (think quantum computers and such).
Nothing in science should be taught as unquestionable. That being said, I do agree with that ID as a whole is not science and should not be taught as such. Some, but not much, research done for and by ID proponents has produced results. Nothing that actually shows real evidence for ID or that evolution has not and is not occurring, or that there is any actual “controversy” about such things among evolutionary biologists, which are the only scientists actually qualified to comment on that. I always laugh when I see people quoting papers by professors of mathematics or other fields as proof that there are major problems in a field unrelated to their field. It is the same thing as me pretending to be an expert on philosophy when I have taken all of two philosophy classes in my life, but they have shown some problems with established knowledge that should be addressed, which is what Dr. Lynch does, which is the same as I do in my classes when new and valid research in relevant fields of physics shows a discrepancy with established knowledge.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Nothing in science should be taught as unquestionable. That being said, I do agree with that ID as a whole is not science and should not be taught as such. Some, but not much, research done for and by ID proponents has produced results.
[/quote]
Please share.
As far as I can tell, they have only produced criticisms of evolution and no actual evidence for ID. As far as I can tell this is ID:
-
Biological systems are complex
-
Complexity requires a designer
-
Therefore biological systems are designed
This is what I’ve gathered from watching PZ Myers and Ken Miller lectures, as well as reading talkorigins
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Nothing in science should be taught as unquestionable. That being said, I do agree with that ID as a whole is not science and should not be taught as such. Some, but not much, research done for and by ID proponents has produced results.
[/quote]
Please share.
As far as I can tell, they have only produced criticisms of evolution and no actual evidence for ID. As far as I can tell this is ID:
-
Biological systems are complex
-
Complexity requires a designer
-
Therefore biological systems are designed
This is what I’ve gathered from watching PZ Myers and Ken Miller lectures, as well as reading talkorigins[/quote]
I said as much in my last post. All most of the actual scientific research done by and for ID proponents has done is point out gaps in our knowledge of evolution. That does not, however prove an intelligent designer must be responsible for life on Earth, it only prove that our knowledge is incomplete, and I do not know of a single actual scientist who has claimed otherwise. Oh and the idea of “irreducible complexity” has no place in science. It may be a valid argument in other fields, but not in science. All it says is that some systems are so complex that we cannot understand how they could have evolved, therefore they must have been designed. That is a neat idea, but is not a scientific argument. First, it assumes that our current base of knowledge is complete and that we will never acquire new knowledge, which is false. Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean that we never will and that the only answer is that it had to have been “intelligently designed.” I used the example of blood clotting chemistry in an earlier post and will do so again. Basically, the argument was made that we do not fully understand the chemistry of blood clotting and how it could have evolved therefore that proved that there had to have been an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, this annoyed biologists and biochemists so a lot of research was done involving the chemistry of blood clotting mechanisms and it was shown that our current human mechanisms of blood clotting did evolve and they even traced it back through certain common ancestors, although I am not sure about how far back the evolution of blood clotting mechanisms were traced. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
Fun story here, one of the physicists who works with me at the University of Pittsburgh actually did a series of experiments with Dr. Behe (the guy who came up with the idea of irreducible complexity) several years ago about complex systems, and they found out that complex systems can emerge naturally without an “intelligent designer.” I doubt that Dr. Behe has actually retracted any of his earlier statements/works on irreducible complexity though. I e-mailed my colleague for a link to the study and will post it when he gets back to me.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Nothing in science should be taught as unquestionable. That being said, I do agree with that ID as a whole is not science and should not be taught as such. Some, but not much, research done for and by ID proponents has produced results.
[/quote]
Please share.
As far as I can tell, they have only produced criticisms of evolution and no actual evidence for ID. As far as I can tell this is ID:
-
Biological systems are complex
-
Complexity requires a designer
-
Therefore biological systems are designed
This is what I’ve gathered from watching PZ Myers and Ken Miller lectures, as well as reading talkorigins[/quote]
The real argument is that certain levels of complexity require the introduction of multiple (unbeneficial individually) traits in simultaneously which cannot be explained in current evolutionary theory.
the guy in the cube adjacent to me is a self proclaimed atheist. Does not believe in god at all, but he does believe that aliens exist, and that they have altered our evolution to make us who we are today. Yeah, an interesting fella . . .
at any rate, the only reason i bring this up is that I think that technically this is a belief in Intelligent Design that completely excludes the presence of a god.
i guess another question would be at what point is our own genetic tinkering considered to be ID
[quote]koffea wrote:
the guy in the cube adjacent to me is a self proclaimed atheist. Does not believe in god at all, but he does believe that aliens exist, and that they have altered our evolution to make us who we are today. Yeah, an interesting fella . . . [/quote]
You pretty much have three to four views from the anti-Darwinian evolution argument:
-
Young earth creationists: They believe the earth is like 10,000 years old, humans and all animals created in their present form, global flood of Noah, Biblical literalists. Check out groups and people like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind or Tas Walker
-
Old earth creationists: The earth is billions of years old, humans were created in their present form but tens of thousands of years ago, also called progressive creationists, read the “days” in Genesis as “ages,” local flood of Noah. Check out groups like Answers in Creation, Reasons to Believe, Hugh Ross
-
Intelligent Design: seeks more to prove that living organisms are too complex to have arisen without a creator, probably more scientific than just plain creationists although they could be creationists, some actually believe in evolution just not Darwinian evolution. Check out groups and people like Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer
-
Theistic evolution: basically believe in evolution but believe it’s driven by God. Check out Francis Collins
I’m not scientist, but I do play one on TV
[quote]BBriere wrote:
You pretty much have three to four views from the anti-Darwinian evolution argument:
-
Young earth creationists: They believe the earth is like 10,000 years old, humans and all animals created in their present form, global flood of Noah, Biblical literalists. Check out groups and people like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind or Tas Walker
-
Old earth creationists: The earth is billions of years old, humans were created in their present form but tens of thousands of years ago, also called progressive creationists, read the “days” in Genesis as “ages,” local flood of Noah. Check out groups like Answers in Creation, Reasons to Believe, Hugh Ross
-
Intelligent Design: seeks more to prove that living organisms are too complex to have arisen without a creator, probably more scientific than just plain creationists although they could be creationists, some actually believe in evolution just not Darwinian evolution. Check out groups and people like Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer
-
Theistic evolution: basically believe in evolution but believe it’s driven by God. Check out Francis Collins
I’m not scientist, but I do play one on TV[/quote]
There is actually two more you’re missing. However, I have zero idea what they are. I’ll see if I can figure it out.
I have no idea. I thought I was kinda stretching putting theistic evolution in a category opposite of Darwinian evolution. They basically believe the same thing as Darwinists only believe God guided the process rather than just random mutations.
Ok, so I cheated and looked up this website. It gives six views on creation though doesn’t mention Intelligent Design. So maybe you could say there are seven views?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
It’s kind of interesting the Francis Collins (head of the Humane Genome Project and devout Roman Catholic) believes in evolution and does not believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have no idea. I thought I was kinda stretching putting theistic evolution in a category opposite of Darwinian evolution. They basically believe the same thing as Darwinists only believe God guided the process rather than just random mutations.
Ok, so I cheated and looked up this website. It gives six views on creation though doesn’t mention Intelligent Design. So maybe you could say there are seven views?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
It’s kind of interesting the Francis Collins (head of the Humane Genome Project and devout Roman Catholic) believes in evolution and does not believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve. [/quote]
From a Catholic view there are two things that need to be believed/held (I forget), no matter where you sit on the spectrum: God created the universe out of nothing (where that be the big bang theory, which I think is awesome because it was partly came up with in a trench during war by a future catholic priest who often corrected the artillery officers in their calculations in aiming their guns) and he supernaturally infused the soul into the first human.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have no idea. I thought I was kinda stretching putting theistic evolution in a category opposite of Darwinian evolution. They basically believe the same thing as Darwinists only believe God guided the process rather than just random mutations.
Ok, so I cheated and looked up this website. It gives six views on creation though doesn’t mention Intelligent Design. So maybe you could say there are seven views?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
It’s kind of interesting the Francis Collins (head of the Humane Genome Project and devout Roman Catholic) believes in evolution and does not believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve. [/quote]
From a Catholic view there are two things that need to be believed/held (I forget), no matter where you sit on the spectrum: God created the universe out of nothing (where that be the big bang theory, which I think is awesome because it was partly came up with in a trench during war by a future catholic priest who often corrected the artillery officers in their calculations in aiming their guns) and he supernaturally infused the soul into the first human.
[/quote]
I think those are good starting points. I respect everyone’s point of view on how the earth or humans came about, but it is a bit bothersome that some groups push their 6 literal days, 10,000 years belief as if you are a sinner if you don’t accept it. Genesis was not a science textbook.
I of course wasn’t alive in the 1930s (not that you know anyway), but it had feel like a big victory when Georges Lemaitre correctly calculated what Fred Hoyle deridingly called the “Big Bang.” Even Einstein refuted the idea at first. More than the scientific implications, it had some major philosophical implications in that the universe was found to have come from nothing and had no cause agent that science could explain. Ex nihilio obviously. It’s funny that admitting this even turned Einstein from atheist to agnostic.
The strongest argument for intelligent design is something called FINE TUNING.
Basic argument is that in order for us to even exist, the conditions of the universe have to be “impossibly” specific. I don’t know the specific numbers, but I do know that it isn’t necessary that life exist as it does, it is possible that life could have existed if the universe didn’t turn out the way it specifically did, and it’s also true that had the universe turned out a different way with life, the conditions for life could hypothetically also be impossibly specific.
I’ve heard of Fine Tuning. There’s also the Anthropic Principle and Teleological Argument. It deals with how the universe had to be just the way it is to support life and how it had to be the way it is to not just collapse back on itself and cease to exist. I read part of an interesting book by a guy named William Dembski about these things before. He’s a PhD mathematician so I didn’t keep up with all of it. I know the chances of life existing in our universe is 1 in a number that is so large it is theoretically zero.
Aw shucks, I thought this was a thread about making fake ID’s…
[quote]pat wrote:
Aw shucks, I thought this was a thread about making fake ID’s…[/quote]
It is. You’re just not reading it right.