A Victory...
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion
And yet I would imagine that in the minds of most people who wrote it, it would have seemed pretty much normal that everyone believed in the same God, roughly, and just argued about the details. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent.
But some local school in Pennsylvania wanting to have some short note referring to a text with an alternative POV that doesn't even mention religion hardly equates to congress establishing a religion. If the federal government sent you a letter tomorrow ordering you to give money to your local Baptist church that would be the establishment of a state religion. Any notion to the contrary is a gross exageration of the obvious intent of the amendment. I will continue to insist that such gross exagerations are rendered specifically to achieve just the opposite result - to in fact promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion
Thank, you, Lord, for the secularists, for, without them, we would be subject to the dictatorship of evil Stanious and his devil spawn Potatohead, er, Punkinhead.
-
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs). Those are issues that should be worked out amoung us - we the people - without any agency of the federal government intervening to influence one POV rather than another. Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:05 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs).
But science is not pro- or anti-religious. If someone wants to go through life exposed to nothing that contradicts their religious beliefs, they would pretty much have to attend a religious school, or be home schooled, or have no education at all.
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways.
Make science an elective. Give tax credits for home schooling (don't we already do this?). I don't know. If someone truly thinks that science is useless, let them skip it -- I suppose the world needs more artists and poets, and McDonalds is always hiring.
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you?
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here.
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
espeir wrote:
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
I first read this in history class about 30 years ago. I'll find references in my library if I have the time. It's not important. You're dodging the point that the word "God" does not only appears in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear at all in the Constitution. Why, if the founding fathers' only aim was to keep the government out of religion, would they not bring their religion explicitly into these important documents? That's a rhetorical question, as most of them gave reasons for this omission. I'll cite references if you like, but I can't imagine at this point that anything would change your mind.
espeir wrote:
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
I have to think that public school science programs kick ass all over Amish science programs. Actually, public schools aren't allowed to be as strict in qualifying teachers as private schools, both secular and religious. I imagine that has much more to do with any disparity -- if there even is one ("I like your lack of a reference," I believe the man said) -- than whether or not religion is taught. As for segregating theists: atheism is not a religion, theists are not segregated, and you're an idiot. Show me evidence to the contrary on any of those points.
espeir wrote:
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
Take your head out of this thread (or wherever your head happens to be), and look around. You will see people -- usually Christians, usually creationists -- asserting all over the place that atheism is a religion. That would seem to constitute co
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion
And yet I would imagine that in the minds of most people who wrote it, it would have seemed pretty much normal that everyone believed in the same God, roughly, and just argued about the details. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
nd just argued about the details.
Rather violently at times, unfortunately.
-
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points. First of all, Newtonian physics is not "wrong". Newtonian physics is quite correct, in fact. It just so happens that Einstein's theory is an improvement upon Newton's theories. Secondly, science is designed to be challenged by rational thinking. Postulating the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent. Scientific theories are subjected to tests and experiment and peer review - that is what dignifies them from religion. Challenging science by inventing some wonderful sounding story about super-smart intelligent beings is repugnant. You can never falsify or prove the existence of such a "designer". Therefore ID is absolute rubbish. Indeed, ID is an infringement upon the constitution. It violates separation of church and state. Make no mistake about that. This is not fanatical behaviour upon the part of any scientists. This is the scientific community rejecting bunk theories and garbage in order to preserve the central aspects of what science is. Challenging science with religious mysticism will get you nowhere.
thealj wrote:
the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent
Millions and millions of people believe in God. They can't all be wrong, can they? Therefore, God exists and therefore so does intelligent design!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Granted, being a non-american, I don't claim to know how the school system is based in America, so this is based on what I've picked up from your last couple of posts. However, as I think I read it from your posts, then the Government (state?) is in control of public schools I take it. Your argument is that by them having control of schools they are in effect "opposing" the free exercising of religion - is this correct? If not - then please ignore all the following gibberish :D I fail to see it your argument fully. If "free exersising" of religion was to take place in the public space, for instance aka prayer in school, all other religions would have to be supported to. That means prayers to other dieties - Muslim prayers, for instance, and it has to be neither mandatory nor placed in "shcool time". Otherwise, it would be limiting the people who doesn't practice said religion and their rights to exersise their religon. I however take it that there are also private schools in America, which I'd suspect there are also Christian driven private schools where prayer is a part of every day. The only way I see it that a Government can ensure the freedom to practice one persons own religon freely in public/governmental space, for instance institutions such as schools, is to ensure that no other religon is practiced. Otherwise, it would open up for a hornests nest of accusations of favoritisme. The latter argument you bring forth, that the state shouldn't be involved in the school, but that presents a totally different line of discussion which points towards economical and political alongside for instance government inclusion in medical facilities, childcare etc. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
Christian Graus wrote:
His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad.
The idea that science requires things to be reproducible (in these sense of being able to rewind history and show evolution happening all over again) is simply wrong. Science requires that hypotheses have empirical implications that can be tested. The more novel, surprising and wide-ranging are the empirical implications, the greater confidence one can have in the hypothesis if those implications are confirmed. Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists and has been subject to modification from day one. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and hence what is called "Darwinian" evolution differs significantly from what Darwin himself wrote. Scientists aren't spending their time regurgitating the texbooks of one hundred years ago. They are in the laboratory, out in the field and poring over the explanations of themselves and others in a restless, never-ending quest for a more accurate and more complete understanding. What is going on in this debate is that people with a prior commitment to a super-natural explanation of origins are pretending to have scientific reasons for their views. They routinely propose ideas that the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to be without merit but these ideas of Creationists/IDers are unaffected by criticism because they are maintained as a matter of faith. Scientists find it offensive that people are pretending to do science when they are really doing something else and hence routinely violating the rules of science. Far from criticisms of evolution being stifled, they are being artificially injected into a scientific context by external forces. If the issue of origins was treated in the same way as any other scientific issue, Creationism would be regarded as a failed hypothesis of only historical interest and ID wouldn't be discussed at all unless as an example (for the purposes of contrast) of a non-scientific explanation. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation
10 presumably the Designer is too complex to have arisen naturally 20 so, who designed the Designer ? 30 GOTO 10 40 Victory for ID Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Christian Graus wrote:
based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
A very good point. I do somehow think many people don't appreciate the difference between an established fact, a theory and a hypothesis though. By the very nature of science, any theory can be found to be incomplete at a later date (or even in rare cases incorrect, but the whole methodology should prevent this happening. That's what hypotheses are for). The more evidence there is to back up a theory, the less likely it becomes that a fatal flaw will be discovered in it, unless of course key evidence is found to be based on fatally flawed assumptions or methods. Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
there's no evidence for anything else.
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. It just seems to me that his claim of evolution as 'unscientific' was based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it. Obviously, this is completely unviable, but I didn't read his comments as suggesting that this means it can't be true. It's just the nature of the theory.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified."
No - he's right. Neither theory can provide the ability to run a test that proves it is true. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
So you believe that if I don't know how something happened therefore there is a supernatural power behind this? Could be useful in IT - "Sir, I don't know why your computer crashed, therefore there must be an alien intelligence who made that happen" :laugh:
Tiefe Wasser sind nicht still Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed.
You got my point, which I thought was pretty clear, but was lost on everyone else. There is tremendous evidence to support evolution and I believe that it occurred. Hell, even the Catholic Church endorses it. However, I'm stating that scientists are far too arrogant in their beliefs. Theory is NOT fact and is constantly shown wrong. Someone mentioned that Stephen Hawking's theories might be wrong according to my reasoning...Duh. He's modified his theories numerous times and (since he is not as arrogant as many evolutionary biologists) is the first to admit that his theories could be completely flawed. My complaint with evolution lies with its suggested method. I could be wrong (something no evolutionary biologist is willing to admit) but I find mere death as a means of interspecial evolution (which someone here admitted was a term above his head and simply means the evolution from one species to another) somewhat hard to accept. Evolution relies on small genetic variations that give reproductive advantages to certain individual species. But I have a hard time picturing the larger changes in animals and how such a large change would be guaranteed to progress simply by a slight advantage over death alone. While I believe this works with lower organisms...how does a mammal evolve from an entirely different kingdom? Remember that evolution requires extremely small and gradual changes that I just don't believe could effect the outcome of an entire animal kingdom. Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists. The political situation around this story is another thing and I find it abhorrent that courts continue to deprive individuals of their rights to govern.
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
And what is your proof/authority for that unfounded assertion?
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Your reasoning certainly is flawed. The absence of a causal explanation for something only proves that the cause is not (yet) understood. It in no way implys or requires the existence of an external intelligent agent. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed.
You got my point, which I thought was pretty clear, but was lost on everyone else. There is tremendous evidence to support evolution and I believe that it occurred. Hell, even the Catholic Church endorses it. However, I'm stating that scientists are far too arrogant in their beliefs. Theory is NOT fact and is constantly shown wrong. Someone mentioned that Stephen Hawking's theories might be wrong according to my reasoning...Duh. He's modified his theories numerous times and (since he is not as arrogant as many evolutionary biologists) is the first to admit that his theories could be completely flawed. My complaint with evolution lies with its suggested method. I could be wrong (something no evolutionary biologist is willing to admit) but I find mere death as a means of interspecial evolution (which someone here admitted was a term above his head and simply means the evolution from one species to another) somewhat hard to accept. Evolution relies on small genetic variations that give reproductive advantages to certain individual species. But I have a hard time picturing the larger changes in animals and how such a large change would be guaranteed to progress simply by a slight advantage over death alone. While I believe this works with lower organisms...how does a mammal evolve from an entirely different kingdom? Remember that evolution requires extremely small and gradual changes that I just don't believe could effect the outcome of an entire animal kingdom. Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists. The political situation around this story is another thing and I find it abhorrent that courts continue to deprive individuals of their rights to govern.
espeir wrote:
I could be wrong (something no evolutionary biologist is willing to admit)
sheer idiocy.
espeir wrote:
Evolution relies on small genetic variations that give reproductive advantages to certain individual species
throwing terms around willy-nilly doesn't help your cause. evolution relies on small genetic variations that give reproductive advantages to individuals, not "individual species".
espeir wrote:
While I believe this works with lower organisms...how does a mammal evolve from an entirely different kingdom?
the same way some mammals evolved placentas and some still lay eggs: small changes over time to genetically-isolated groups of individuals.
espeir wrote:
which someone here admitted was a term above his head
got a link to this ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 11:25 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed.
You got my point, which I thought was pretty clear, but was lost on everyone else. There is tremendous evidence to support evolution and I believe that it occurred. Hell, even the Catholic Church endorses it. However, I'm stating that scientists are far too arrogant in their beliefs. Theory is NOT fact and is constantly shown wrong. Someone mentioned that Stephen Hawking's theories might be wrong according to my reasoning...Duh. He's modified his theories numerous times and (since he is not as arrogant as many evolutionary biologists) is the first to admit that his theories could be completely flawed. My complaint with evolution lies with its suggested method. I could be wrong (something no evolutionary biologist is willing to admit) but I find mere death as a means of interspecial evolution (which someone here admitted was a term above his head and simply means the evolution from one species to another) somewhat hard to accept. Evolution relies on small genetic variations that give reproductive advantages to certain individual species. But I have a hard time picturing the larger changes in animals and how such a large change would be guaranteed to progress simply by a slight advantage over death alone. While I believe this works with lower organisms...how does a mammal evolve from an entirely different kingdom? Remember that evolution requires extremely small and gradual changes that I just don't believe could effect the outcome of an entire animal kingdom. Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists. The political situation around this story is another thing and I find it abhorrent that courts continue to deprive individuals of their rights to govern.
espeir wrote:
Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists.
I don't understand how you can make those claims. Evolutionary biologists are constantly modifying their theoritical framework. Time and time again, one view of evolution has been replaced by another. Evolutionary theory seems to follow precisely the same general trend as do all other branches of science. However, you cannot fault them for refusing to consider ID when ID itself offers no theoritical framework of its own. It simply is not sufficient to claim that evolutionary theory does not account for the tremendous complexity of life when your own offers no means of even asking the question. In addition, speciation (a more commonly accepted term,I believe, than your 'interspecial evolution') remains a heavily debated area of evolution. But the fact that it occurs is well documented by not only the fossil record, but genetic similarities between species, as well as by superflous anatomical features found in some species. Plus, speciatioon is not difficult to understand given that members of a single species that move into new environments or are separated by geological changes in the earth itself, will ovbiously adapt in differnet ways to different enviroinments. The collected genetic changes over time will render them incapable of producing viable offsprings and thus produce new species. That is why I used my 'black hole' example. To say that simply because we cannot reproduce speciation for multicellular organisms in short time frames no more invalidates all the evidence supporting the theory than not being able to reproduce a black hole invalidates Hawkins radiation or not being able to reproduce continental drift invalidates plate techtonics. Hawkins might admit that his theories are perhaps less than perfect, but I have never heard him say "Gee, that must mean God did it". "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
espeir wrote:
Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists.
I don't understand how you can make those claims. Evolutionary biologists are constantly modifying their theoritical framework. Time and time again, one view of evolution has been replaced by another. Evolutionary theory seems to follow precisely the same general trend as do all other branches of science. However, you cannot fault them for refusing to consider ID when ID itself offers no theoritical framework of its own. It simply is not sufficient to claim that evolutionary theory does not account for the tremendous complexity of life when your own offers no means of even asking the question. In addition, speciation (a more commonly accepted term,I believe, than your 'interspecial evolution') remains a heavily debated area of evolution. But the fact that it occurs is well documented by not only the fossil record, but genetic similarities between species, as well as by superflous anatomical features found in some species. Plus, speciatioon is not difficult to understand given that members of a single species that move into new environments or are separated by geological changes in the earth itself, will ovbiously adapt in differnet ways to different enviroinments. The collected genetic changes over time will render them incapable of producing viable offsprings and thus produce new species. That is why I used my 'black hole' example. To say that simply because we cannot reproduce speciation for multicellular organisms in short time frames no more invalidates all the evidence supporting the theory than not being able to reproduce a black hole invalidates Hawkins radiation or not being able to reproduce continental drift invalidates plate techtonics. Hawkins might admit that his theories are perhaps less than perfect, but I have never heard him say "Gee, that must mean God did it". "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
-
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum
another classic IDist talking point. "scientists" don't want to debate ID any more than they want to debate alchemy or astrology. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
You might have fun debating a brick wall, but I'm sure very few scientits enjoy it. ID is an attempt at an end run around debate. Kinda like me stating the universe was created 5 minutes ago by a flying speghetti monster, there is no possibility of finding evidence that can prove otherwise. ID is just a meaningless extra axiom in the system that doesn't belong there.
espeir wrote:
And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
Personal belief has nothing to do with science. Hawking as mentioned it in his popular writing, but you won't find god mentioned anywhere in is scientific publications.
-
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points. First of all, Newtonian physics is not "wrong". Newtonian physics is quite correct, in fact. It just so happens that Einstein's theory is an improvement upon Newton's theories. Secondly, science is designed to be challenged by rational thinking. Postulating the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent. Scientific theories are subjected to tests and experiment and peer review - that is what dignifies them from religion. Challenging science by inventing some wonderful sounding story about super-smart intelligent beings is repugnant. You can never falsify or prove the existence of such a "designer". Therefore ID is absolute rubbish. Indeed, ID is an infringement upon the constitution. It violates separation of church and state. Make no mistake about that. This is not fanatical behaviour upon the part of any scientists. This is the scientific community rejecting bunk theories and garbage in order to preserve the central aspects of what science is. Challenging science with religious mysticism will get you nowhere.
thealj wrote:
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points.
Thanks. You just saved me a lot of typing. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain