Posted on 09/22/2005 4:15:34 AM PDT by SeaLion
Editor's Note: This article is the first in a special LiveScience series about the theory of evolution and a competing idea called intelligent design.
TODAY: An overview of the increasingly heated exchange between scientists and the proponents of intelligent design.
COMING FRIDAY : Proponents argue that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory, but a close look at their arguments shows that it doesn't pass scientific muster.
Science can sometimes be a devil's bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.
[snip]
Darwin's truth can be a hard one to accept. His theory of evolution tells us that humans evolved from non-human life as the result of a natural process, one that was both gradual, happening over billions of years, and random. It tells us that new life forms arise from the splitting of a single species into two or more species, and that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single common ancestor.
Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
For Americans who view evolution as inconsistent with their intuitions or beliefs about life and how it began, Creationism has always been a seductive alternative.
Creationism's latest embodiment is intelligent design (ID), a conjecture that certain features of the natural world are so intricate and so perfectly tuned for life that they could only have been designed by a Supreme Being.
[article continues...]
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Also how did all the sea creatures drown?
ID is based on space aliens genetically engineering all the organs in life forms that Behe says are complex. That's what this thread is about, ID.
Wow, nice strawman. Stupid me, I'd thought, from your posts, that you were different. Consequently I replied to your post in a direct and thoughtful way. And I'm repaid with that all time creationist favorite, the strawman.
Well, I shall not repay you in kind, but you'll get no respect from me.
... and 2) superior to other methods of knowing things.
Oh look, another strawman with a touch of sophistry thrown in. Where I have said reliable knowledge about the world, you substitute "things."
But strip away your moving the goal posts and yes, I'd say that naturalistic reasoning has proved superior to every other method in developing reliable knowledge about the world.
I'll preempt your next strawman here; I am speaking of the past and present (and near future as clear as I can see it). It is entirely conceivable that some superior method will come along. ID in its present incarnation is not that method.
The only way rock-paper-scissors could be comparable to the A>B and B>C thus A>C example would be to add the additional proposition C>A. But at that point the conclusion A>C would be nonsense. I'm not sure it is helpful to us given the discussion.
It's helpful to those smart enough to follow along. You've missed the point completely. You claimed the transitive rule is self-evident. By showing an interpretation in which the transitive rule does not hold (as any child who's played the game knows), I have shown your claim to be self-evidently wrong.
This may be a simple truth, yet it is one that appeals to our intuition. This requires no further observation to conclude it's truth.
So you not only know little of math and science but are also ignorant of their history. The parallel postulate was a simple, intuitive and undoubted truth for over 2000 years until it was overturned. A prudent person learns from historical facts like that and many others where the simple, intuitive and undoubted are upended. Creationists prefer building their own fantasy history.
You make other mistakes but I don't have the time now to school you. Maybe later.
I read the entire article, I cannot remember anything having to do with space aliens.
Borderline? I guess I must not be any good at it since it wasn't intended to be borderline.
However, I shall take you at your word for now. I likewise apologize. I have held you to a stricter standard than others - I usually allow several strikes. If you will refrain from using misleading rhetoric, I will be happy to engage you.
BTW, you do know what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong, right? Well maybe not so here is a link. As a specific instance, if I use the word reliable, do not "refute" my point by substituting the word infallible.
Now, let's continue directly and thoughtfully to address your main question, "why must [methodological naturalism] be the paradigm?"
I would say first that "must" isn't the correct way to look at it. The proper word is "ought" by which I mean that it is not a necessity but rather a rational choice. It is a rational choice because it the only method so far developed that has produced reliable knowledge about the world.
Well, to be blunt, you assume the existence a set of extra-natural beings and posit that they not only exist but one created nature itself. That assumption is not self-proving; you cannot logically point to the assumption as proof of, or even evidence for, the truthfullness of the assumption. I'm asking whether there is evidence in this natural world that proves that assumption: i.e., that shows the existence of the putative extra-natural set of beings.
Thanks.
Well, I certainly respect your right to believe what you wish.
I'm not so sure that coming back to life as described in the bible for Jesus will always be beyond our capabilities, with the increases in nanotechnology and genetic manipulation that we can expect. (Although it was certainly beyond the capacity of first century Roman civilization, and beyond our current capacity as well, concededly.) So I would not say that coming back to life, per se, is scientifically impossible.
But, nevertheless, even if it were, for this story to act as the kind of natural evidence of the existence of a God, it would have to be verifiable, which returns us to my original question about non-documentary proofs. To credit this story as evidence for the existence of the divine, it would seem to me, requires proof that this man actually lived, that he actually died, and that he actually rose from the dead. Again, I don't believe that there's any evidence whatsoever, aside from the bible, from which these points can be substantiated.
Thanks for your reply. It was thought provoking.
That's an interesting point. However, I am certainly not playing dumb. "Deep down" inside, I do not believe that there is any evidence for the existence of the divine. In fact, "deep down" inside I believe that religious believers are those who are naturally terrified of their own nonexistence after death, but who will do anything -- even devote their lives to performing meaningless rituals and wasting some of the limited and priceless time they have by studying ancient texts in a desperate hope that strong belief will somehow change the fact of what will happen to them when they someday die. (And I don't mean this as an insult to any one particular religion, or religion in general. I very much understand even that which I am describing above. However, you wanted to know what I think "deep down"? There you have it...)
Evolution is not provable. Neither is Creation. But a substantial body of evidence - evidence which, I must add, is commonly interpreted with the conclusion as a premise - points to a young earth:
Well, nothing in science is "provable," only subject to falsification. As I've said before, there is an unassailable argument that the Genesis story simply could not have physically happened as written. Further, the list of items you've described have been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked on this forum and on others, so I won't waste my time refuting them seriatim.
However, I'd merely point out that even if all of these things were right, it would not prove a young earth, nor prove the existence of a God. We simply might not have a clear understanding of the natural world, but to say that this lack of understanding is proof of the existence of an infinitely complex being is the ultimate in non-sequitur.
Both evolution and creation are accepted on faith, the evolutionist's protests to the contrary notwithstanding.
Not really. In science, if there is any "faith," it is faith that the evidence and supporting facts reported by colleagues is done accurately and truthfully so the conclusions that logically and reasonably flow from those facts are consistent. But even that is not "faith" because of the assumption that the fact gathering and experimentation will be repeated or repeatable shows that this is less faith then an operating assumption. And it is not "faith" because it is always subject to abandonment if further experimentation and fact gathering shows the belief to be untenable.
Religious faith, on the other hand, is the belief in something without any factual support or even in the presence of disproof of the belief. This is, to me, a fascinating phenomenon, and something which I find to be endlessly interesting. But it is certainly not the same thing as the operating assumptions in science.
Constancy of rates is accepted on faith because in our short lives they are not empiracally provable (and the evolutionist would not be pleased with what little evidence is available). Only one theory, however, is tenable when we let the facts drive the conclusion and not vice-versa.
And it certainly isn't the religious one, but I expect you'll disagree.
For example, at a very basic level the initial agreement to number things the way we have (counting each discrete item separately) is arbitrary. Some civilizations have had a numbering system consisting of "one, two and many." Mathematics based on such a system can model the world, but not with the precision of other systems. Choosing one over the other is arbitrary in the sense that which system is correct depends in part on what you hope to accomplish. (Drawing a distinction between 1,724,794,293 and 1,724,794,294 may be wasteful and inappropriate if your mathematics is merely used to answer the question of whether one person can carry "x" number of things in his hands. Making no distinction between the number of items above 2 makes no sense if you intend to use the system in international banking.)
Further, I disagree with your contention that thinking hints at a extra-natural existence. I believe it is entirely consistent with the workings of a complex brain.
But, more to the point, you ask:Why must the only way to answer the original question as to the existence of a "God" be through a naturalistic test if we cannot apply the same standard to man's identity or ideas that themselves are intrinsically true? It is a presupposition that "God" must first be the type of being that can only be observed naturally before his existence can be verified. Why must that be the paradigm?
I am not making those suppositions. I am merely asking whether there is any kind of natural or materialistic that people rely upon in making their faith conclusions as a way of understanding how those conclusions are reached. If, in fact, one says to me that the absence of evidence or the presence of counter-evidence to the tenets of his faith does not affect the strength of his faith, that gives me some insight into the makeup of his belief method, so to speak, which is what I find so interesting. In some sense it is an irrational belief (not in the pejorative sense), and the makeup of that belief method is what I am seeking to understand.
Really? That's interesting. I know of many people, and know a few personally, who've had changes of heart and behavior based on other religious faiths. Of course, just among famous people, Cat Stevens, Malcolm Little and Cassius Clay found solace in Islam (changing their hearts and behavior so much that they changed their names); Tom Cruise and John Travolta swear by Scientology as the thing that changed their lives for the better and made them complete people; Richard Gere found fulfillment in Buhddism; I believe Sammy Davis Jr. embraced Judaism for the same reason. I personally know of 2 people who found changes of heart and behaviors by embracing eastern religions, as well as Christianity.
* * *
Third, what evidence do you have that the Muslim interpretation of things, in which the Koran was given to the Jews and Christians who then perverted it into the current forms of those religions, is false (assuming that you do, in fact, believe it to be false)?The book of islam didn’t appear until 600 plus years after Christ, 2,000 years after Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.
Right, but my question went more towards the theology of Islam and the manner in which it addresses your faith. I guess my question is whether you've examined your religion to determine whether it can sustain Islam's challenge, and what the results of that inquiry was.
* * *
Fourth, on your believe in the Bible; if the Bible said something that you knew, from non-biblical sources, for an absolute fact was not true, would you believe the Bible? For example, if the Bible said "all cats reproduce by laying eggs out of which kittens hatch," would you believe cats lay eggs or would you conclude that the text is wrong and believe what you know to be the truth?But, that is a hypothetical that has never been shown. There is no instance in the Bible, the holy Word of the Living God, that can be shown to be false. Not even the stopping of the sun.
I know it is a hypothetical. As I've said on another post, surely you are imaginative enough to be able to consider what you would think if presented with that hypothetical, aren't you? I am really interested in the nature of your beliefs and their bases.
If there was something patently ridiculous in the Bible, would you believe it, simply because it was in the Bible; reject it because it is patently ridiculous; or refuse to accept that it is patently ridiculous, even in the fact of its patent ridiculousness, in order to preserve both your faith and your self-image as a rational person? Or perhaps some other answer?
Time will tell who is right.
"Do you consider faith and religion synonymous with false and silly?"
Religion is generally false and silly, unless it has a Scriptural definition (James 1:27). Religion that is false and silly includes, generally speaking, of a liturgical type. Faith in the correct object, The Lord Jesus Christ, Who created the worlds, is neither false or silly.
""The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further. The hope is to push the date back to at least 8,000 BC. This will be important as the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, and to have a record of this transition period would offer scientists a wealth of information.'"
Only in the circular reasoning of Darwinian scientists, who are described in Pslam 14:1.
"So can you post the link to where the English language was observed to evolve in a laboratory setting? Or are you saying English is just a dialect of Aramaic?"
I am saying that anyone that is 30 years of age or older in America can hear changes in language, and we can view adaptations of usage of words, and the addition of new words and usages in almost every new edition of Webster's Collegiate dictionary. Evolution of biological species from one form to another, can not be observed, and have never been observed in recorded history.
Our family was at the Lowry Park Zoo in Tampa this past Thursday. People giving the shows there had a lot to say about how one species had evolved from another species because of certain undeniably similar characteristics. Right! Those characteristics were undeniably similar. My nine-year-old girl said, "So, God created two different animals, and put very similar characteristics in them...so what?" Right she is.
"'It has been calibrated against bristlecone pines going back some 11,500 years'"
Only in the circular reasoning of Darwinian scientists.
I see you're the type that doesn't believe his lying eyes.
Then who's the Designer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.