creation museum (1 Viewer)

[snakybus]

to further what snakybus said, i don't see atheists getting that worked up about belief with catholics, say. and atheism vs. theism is a more fraught debate than darwinism vs. ID.

probably because theism doesn't use the language of atheism against it, but ID uses the language of science against darwinism.

And also because it's trying to break its way into science classes in the US and doing quite well. And because it has connections with the current "conservative" agenda over there. In fairness, that's a bit scary.

 

[avernus]

I believe that you have either not read what I've been saying, or that you have misinterpreted it. I've made it clear that I am not suggesting that ID is right, or better. But I also believe that proposing one, unproven, theory, and putting it forward as the ONLY solution, to the point that people assume it is 100% correct, although they would be very hard pushed to provide any unshakable evidence, is wrong.

Religion and science are completely separate, of course they are. I'm not arguing in favour of one or the other. But when secular and scientific thought becomes as fanatical as religion I think we need to re-evaluate ourselves.

so.. what, don't teach the theory of evolution because.. hey, it might be wrong? so kids go to science class and the teachers says "hey children, today there'll be no class.. or any other day.. because, there is some element of doubt with regard to absolutely everything we teach and so therefore we shouldn't teach it. so you're dismissed. enjoy your religion class, though. I think this week Jesus is having a full blown conversation with fish!"

Keeping an open mind for a better theory or new evidence is not the same as thinking ID is as valid as Evolution. You can believe god made us, but you can't prove it - so it has no place alongside the theory of evolution.

I don't think you're saying "INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS WHAT HAPPENED. THE END!" - but I think what you're saying is worse, because you are aligning it with rational thought as a possible alternative. Faith and Science are mutually exclusive - but that's not to say you can't be a scientist who has faith, but they must be kept separate because they are separate.

 

[Juno]

Keeping an open mind for a better theory or new evidence is not the same as thinking ID is as valid as Evolution. You can believe god made us, but you can't prove it - so it has no place alongside the theory of evolution.

Agreed. If someone was to come up with another scientific theory to rival evolutionary theory and could provide a similar amount of evidence then it would deserve to be considered as an alternative explanation. A religious belief is not a valid alternative theory. Endy story.

 

[Squiggle]

so.. what, don't teach the theory of evolution because.. hey, it might be wrong? so kids go to science class and the teachers says "hey children, today there'll be no class.. or any other day.. because, there is some element of doubt with regard to absolutely everything we teach and so therefore we shouldn't teach it. so you're dismissed. enjoy your religion class, though. I think this week Jesus is having a full blown conversation with fish!"

No, but teaching the theory of evolution as though it is as fully proven as a mathematic theorem is logically wrong, and yet that is what they are doing in schools. We could get into a very long debate about symantics and teaching v's investigating but this thread is already far too long.

I don't think you're saying "INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS WHAT HAPPENED. THE END!" - but I think what you're saying is worse, because you are aligning it with rational thought as a possible alternative. Faith and Science are mutually exclusive - but that's not to say you can't be a scientist who has faith, but they must be kept separate because they are separate.

I am saying that there is very little that we actually know, and that people who shout loudly about how right they are and how wrong everyone else is frequently end up looking like fools, this has been shown throught the history of science, philosophy, religion, mathematics, it is the one human constant.

 

[Squiggle]

Agreed. If someone was to come up with another scientific theory to rival evolutionary theory and could provide a similar amount of evidence then it would deserve to be considered as an alternative explanation. A religious belief is not a valid alternative theory. Endy story.

I couldn't agree more, but dismissing any theory on the grounds that it has been accused of being religious, without actually bothering to look any further into it than that, or determine if it has any scientific merit is tantamount to zealotry.

 

[avernus]

I am saying that there is very little that we actually know, and that people who shout loudly about how right they are and how wrong everyone else is frequently end up looking like fools, this has been shown throught the history of science, philosophy, religion, mathematics, it is the one human constant.

so... you're hedging, then, yeah? you don't want to look like a fool so you're saying "I don't know" and "Intelligent Design might have scientific merit" and "the theory of evolution has some holes". Ok.

 

[avernus]

I couldn't agree more, but dismissing any theory on the grounds that it has been accused of being religious, without actually bothering to look any further into it than that, or determine if it has any scientific merit is tantamount to zealotry.

hmm.. how about dismissing because it IS religious. Intelligent Design is fundamentally religious - albeit without specifically aligning itself to any one religion (but of course it's christianity!). It has posited no new facts, only filled holes in existing scientific theories with mass cards.

 

[Juno]

I couldn't agree more, but dismissing any theory on the grounds that it has been accused of being religious, without actually bothering to look any further into it than that, or determine if it has any scientific merit is tantamount to zealotry.

It's not that creationism has been accused of being religious - it is. The central tenent of intelligent design/creationism is that the universe was created by a god-like figure. Even just reading stuff on the web about it (not to mention all those childhood years of Catholic teaching) it's plainly obvious the main exponents are religious, usually American, figures.
I don't know about all areas of science but I know that in psychology there is plenty that creationism doesn't explain - in fact that flies in the face of it - which is persuasively explained by evolutionary psychology. For instance, ID believes that all things were created complete but it's been found that for one thing language pathways in the brain are often superimposed upon existing, more basic structures indicating that these were faculties that came to us at a later point than say motor control or vision. There are lots more examples and I wouldn't be an expert but it's very obvious if you study it at all that ID falls very short of the mark in providing a valid alternative theory, even discounting it being based on a religious story.

 

[magicbastarder]

does anyone else see the rise of ID as partially a good thing?
i.e. the religious right have largely realised that creationism is hogwash, so they've retreated to a position which acknowledges evolution, but posits a religious rationale behind in. in short, it's a partial climbdown for them.

 

[Diddles]

hmm.. how about dismissing because it IS religious. Intelligent Design is fundamentally religious - albeit without specifically aligning itself to any one religion (but of course it's christianity!). It has posited no new facts, only filled holes in existing scientific theories with mass cards.

The people who came up with the idea in the first place do, in fact, align ID with a specific Designer i.e. Bible God. Esssentially ID is a cyncial propaganda tool being used as a vehicle to convert people to christianity under the guise of science. It's a load of bollocks.

 

[Squiggle]

so... you're hedging, then, yeah? you don't want to look like a fool so you're saying "I don't know" and "Intelligent Design might have scientific merit" and "the theory of evolution has some holes". Ok.

I'm still looking, I'm not going to accept the most popular theory as 'gospel', purely because it is the most popular, instead I will continue investigate and evaluate theories on their merits or lack of.

 

[snakybus]

No, I wouldn't see it as a good thing, on balance. I'm all for pseudo science or proto science theories popping their heads up every now and then to challenge the behemoths of accepted scientific theories. That's frequently how science works. I'm even in favour of religious or theological inclinations influencing or informing science and vice versa. But in this case, it's purely political. It's trying to give creationism a somewhat acceptable face. And these things are always about money and power. So, no.

 

[ITalkShite]

I couldn't agree more, but dismissing any theory on the grounds that it has been accused of being religious, without actually bothering to look any further into it than that, or determine if it has any scientific merit is tantamount to zealotry.

I would agree absolutely with this statement, which is why I'm so confused by everything else that you've been saying. Mainly because if you apply your standard, as articulated here, to 'Intelligent design', it completely fails to hold up. So what gives?

 

[avernus]

I would agree absolutely with this statement, which is why I'm so confused by everything else that you've been saying. Mainly because if you apply your standard, as articulated here, to 'Intelligent design', it completely fails to hold up. So what gives?

 

[Squiggle]

I would agree absolutely with this statement, which is why I'm so confused by everything else that you've been saying. Mainly because if you apply your standard, as articulated here, to 'Intelligent design', it completely fails to hold up. So what gives?

My only argument here has always been that opinions ought to be, no, must be, informed in order to be valid as arguments.

I was attacked for giving information, not an opinion, merely stating a position that some people hold. I have spent the last 10 pages defending the right of people to hold alternative opinions and questioning the right of anyone to attempt to force their own opinion down anyone else's throat.

Something is either fact or it is not, if there is room for doubt there is room for alternative speculation. This can only be a good thing as it will ensure that people continue to strive to conclusively prove one theory or another, thus ruling out the risk of accepting something because it is the only option.

 

[MDR]

Yeah but squiggle, what makes you think that people's opposition to ID is based on them not understanding it or being uninformed about it?

 

[classic seanc]

There’s a yoke on youtube where a creationist goes on about banana’s being perfectly designed by god to suit us humans. Peels easily, indented for our hands, no seeds, etc. It's wonderous.
Then there’s a tonne of reply video’s explaining why he’s talking shite.
That’s nothing to do with this thread, but it’s interesting viewing. Yerman must be pure scarleh’.

 

[Squiggle]

Yeah but squiggle, what makes you think that people's opposition to ID is based on them not understanding it or being uninformed about it?

Have you read any informed opposition in this thread?

 

[ITalkShite]

My only argument here has always been that opinions ought to be, no, must be, informed in order to be valid as arguments.

I was attacked for giving information, not an opinion, merely stating a position that some people hold. I have spent the last 10 pages defending the right of people to hold alternative opinions and questioning the right of anyone to attempt to force their own opinion down anyone else's throat.

Something is either fact or it is not, if there is room for doubt there is room for alternative speculation. This can only be a good thing as it will ensure that people continue to strive to conclusively prove one theory or another, thus ruling out the risk of accepting something because it is the only option.

Yep - again, I agree absolutely; but that only adds to my confusion - 'Intelligent design' is not a valid argument, so why bother defending something irrational and unscientific in the name of rationality and science?

Sometimes an argument is just plain wrong, and it helps everybody to dump it and move on. Or should we also defend the idea that the earth is flat, on the same grounds of valuing all theories, even the ones that don't make sense?

 

[Bladez]

so... you're hedging, then, yeah? you don't want to look like a fool so you're saying "I don't know" and "Intelligent Design might have scientific merit" and "the theory of evolution has some holes". Ok.

We're talking about ideas here, not truths. All we can do is hedge.

I prefer the idea of evolution because of the simplicity and elegance of the idea and the weight of evidence in its favour and I've every faith in it being refined so as to fill in those holes.

The ideas of ID seem too arbitrary to me. But I'm not going to say that ID is wrong.

I agree with you on ID being taught in the science class. I think if ID wants to be treated as a science, it needs to meet science halfway. It needs to put forward some hypothesis that are testable.