Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :)

[nbcrusader]

science excludes ID because ID isn't science. it has no scientific credibility, thus it is inferior.

How can it not have credibility when it is not even considered?

You have no basis to determine if it is superior or inferior.

 

[got2k9s]

i really don't know anymore.

i used to think i had an idea, but in here, it's a definition of convenience.

I take it that from this last part, you are mostly referring to those who want to claim both "majority" and "minority" status?
Not sure, but that is what I am inferring from remembering previous comments of yours in this thread, right?

Well, I have not read any previous threads on this matter in FYM, so I can't say, but I am wondering if you are referring to the SAME people posting both claims, or just "Christians" in general posting both claims.

Because, here is how I look at it, if you are interested . . .

The majority religion in the U.S. is arguably "Christian." But for some people, they associate with the word because they believe there's a God up there, but they don't really practice Christianity, if that makes sense. But they can't call themselves atheist because they believe there is a God or being, and they can't call themselves "Muslim" because they don't believe it's "Allah," etc.

BUT of these "Christians," a minority OF THEM are active in promoting the values of Christianity, so perhaps that's where both a majority/minority tag comes in?

 

[BVS]

AND, "rude?"
Yes, her answer was THAT too. Just because you agree with her doesn't mean you should avoid that fact.

You assume far, far too much.

 

[Irvine511]

How can it not have credibility when it is not even considered?

You have no basis to determine if it is superior or inferior.

it is not considered because it is not science. evolutionary theory and "ID" are not speaking the same language. essentially, what "ID" does is graft loose science onto creationist theory in order to give it more credibility. there is no comparison to be made, and the error is in equating the two, something committed frequently by the media, setting up the two as if they were fighters in a prizefight, which should represent something of a victory of "ID" componants -- through their endless working of the media, they've given "ID" a credibility in the minds of the public that no scientist would ever give it.

 

[Liesje]

it is not considered because it is not science. evolutionary theory and "ID" are not speaking the same language. essentially, what "ID" does is graft loose science onto creationist theory in order to give it more credibility. there is no comparison to be made, and the error is in equating the two, something committed frequently by the media, setting up the two as if they were fighters in a prizefight, which should represent something of a victory of "ID" componants -- through their endless working of the media, they've given "ID" a credibility in the minds of the public that no scientist would ever give it.

For what it's worth, I'm a Christian, and a pretty traditional one at that, and I personally believe that what you're saying is entirely true. The Bible was never intended to be science or interpreted as such. ID is not one of many scientific theories, it's sort of like it's own domain. You either believe in ID, or you believe in one of the many scientific theories of creation. Believing this has never had any adverse effect on my spirituality or theology. I belive in ID, but I don't believe there is any scientific proof of it because God simply transcends the realm of science, which is a human process. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if humans COULD scientifically prove ID or the existence of God.

 

[Irvine511]

For what it's worth, I'm a Christian, and a pretty traditional one at that, and I personally believe that what you're saying is entirely true. The Bible was never intended to be science or interpreted as such. ID is not one of many scientific theories, it's sort of like it's own domain. You either believe in ID, or you believe in one of the many scientific theories of creation. Believing this has never had any adverse effect on my spirituality or theology. I belive in ID, but I don't believe there is any scientific proof of it because God simply transcends the realm of science, which is a human process. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if humans COULD scientifically prove ID or the existence of God.

makes loads of sense to me.

 

[got2k9s]

I belive in ID, but I don't believe there is any scientific proof of it because God simply transcends the realm of science, which is a human process. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if humans COULD scientifically prove ID or the existence of God.

I wholeheartedly agree.

So, here is the question . . . and since 'intent' isn't always easy to distinguish in writing, I'll just flat-out say that this question is not meant to be sarcastic, but serious and kind . . .

Irvine, if that makes sense, why reject ID so adamantly?
I think I am confused by the reasoning and would love to hear your thoughts on that.

 

[nbcrusader]

it is not considered because it is not science. evolutionary theory and "ID" are not speaking the same language. essentially, what "ID" does is graft loose science onto creationist theory in order to give it more credibility. there is no comparison to be made, and the error is in equating the two, something committed frequently by the media, setting up the two as if they were fighters in a prizefight, which should represent something of a victory of "ID" componants -- through their endless working of the media, they've given "ID" a credibility in the minds of the public that no scientist would ever give it.

That's circular reasoning. I think you've used the Kim Jong-il for similar reasoning.

And I agree with Lies - the Bible is not presented as a scientific journal. It goes well beyond that.

But ID does not equal the Bible.

 

[carrieluvv]

got2k9's i appreciate your input

 

[Liesje]

So, here is the question . . . and since 'intent' isn't always easy to distinguish in writing, I'll just flat-out say that this question is not meant to be sarcastic, but serious and kind . . .

I know that post was for Irvine, but I just thought I'd say that I don't think determining the intent of the Christian creation story is necessary. If you look at the Hebrew and the meanings of those words, there are two different words used for "creation". One always implies God as the creator or the acting entity, the other uses a word "creation", but does not imply who the creator is and means something more along the lines of evolution. Based on what I've come to believe are the most accurate interpretations of the Hebrew texts, I think that the Christian creation story neither directly supports nor denies the existence of evolution, even human evolution.

Personally, whether or not human evolution exists does not have any effect on my theological beliefs or spiritual relationship with God.

 

[got2k9s]

I know that post was for Irvine, but I just thought I'd say that I don't think determining the intent of the Christian creation story is necessary.

Sorry for any miscommunication, but by "intent" I actually meant MY intention in asking the question to Irvine.

I didn't want to seem "snotty" but rather, wanted it known I was asking, seriously, rather than sort of 'snidely.'

The intention of my question was what I was trying to protect from scrutiny.

However, your reply does lead me toward a question for you . . .

I am wondering about your thoughts on "the evolution of man" being consistent with the Christian belief of the creation of man, or the creation story . . . the Bible states that God created man, in the form of a man.

Just wondering your thoughts on this . . .

 

[A_Wanderer]

How can it not have credibility when it is not even considered?

You have no basis to determine if it is superior or inferior.

Either papers with a premise of ID have been rejected for publishing on the basis of their methodology or the ID movement deliberately abstains from seeking publication and putting the ideas out there. ID springs up from a few think tanks and goes straight into lobby groups to get it into the curriculum, it is not a hotbed of research within the scientific community, evolution is the dominant paradigm - naturalistic causes for the formation of life is the most consistent position with the facts that we have, if ever irrefutable proof of a designer comes to hand then things will have to be seriously considered but in the absence of that evidence one cannot place the two on equal footing or even give the speculation without evidence the title theory.

I might as well lobby the catholic church to start giving equal time to atheism because I claim the faithful have questions that they need to answer.

 

[got2k9s]

. . . if ever irrefutable proof of a designer comes to hand then things will have to be seriously considered but in the absence of that evidence one cannot place the two on equal footing or even give the speculation without evidence the title theory.

I might refer you to LivLuv's excellent post, above, for a perfect response to this. There is no way for me to improve upon her assertions by adding anything.

However, what did the first scientist do, or the second, or the third, when RESEARCHING or SEEKING?

Did he/she just say, "I can't speculate anything without evidence or proof?" Of course not, how else does one FIND evidence or proof without first speculation? True, sometimes things are stumbled upon. But it seems ridiculous to assert that there are not proactive attempts to find evidence after speculation. SO MUCH OF SCIENCE is about that. Testing theories. Proof would be impossible without it. Even stumbling upon something requires attention to it so as to "prove" it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

First of all, "not a recognized and accepted theory within the scientific community" is just not true!
Are you saying that anyone who believes ID is not a scientist? Because there ARE people who are scientists and believe in ID and/or are continually fascinated enough with it to continue looking into it. YOU just don't believe it. Many others don't as well, that's true. But for you guys to say "We speak for everyone" is a lot of things, including not only arrogant, but just plain false

Just not true? do you know what a scientific theory is - it is not just an educated guess, a fanciful construction. It is the structure of knowledge that best explains what is observed in the real world. For instance lets take the formation of amino acids and nucleotide strands through abiotic processes similar to those present on the early earth, experiments that are able to produce these very rapidly in a small space tells us that it would be possible if highly unlikely that more complex self replicating and self regulating molecules could be formed through random means. And that distant chance would have had not a single lab but an entire planet and instead of a few days about a billion years, more if we were to consider the possibility of life being carried to earth from Mars (we have evidence that Mars posessed liquid water on it's surface when the planet was warmer and had an atmosphere maintained by volcanism, the important prerequisite for life as we know it is liquid water. This is just illustrative of how by the numbers life could arise through naturalistic means). A designer however implies an intelligence - and the universe being devoid of the supernatural we would have to assume that this designer arose through wholy naturalistic means. Now this designer would presumably have created life forms that could survive on the early earth, ones that would compete with eachother and ultimately evolve (this is a talk about origins, evolution would apply on a designed organism with the same means of information structure. Both naturalistic DNA and designed DNA would mutate, duplicate and have information added and lost). Now the designer would have to seed the planet some 3.5 billion years+ ago, to acheive this undertaking they would have to send it to Earth, on a spaceship - possibly an advanced AI that could monitor and ensure sucess - such a project would be conducted why though? Why would aliens seed a planet with life forms, forgoing a tremendous ammount of expenses if there was not going to be any return, wheres the logic in that.

We have two ideas. One is a scientific theory, that life arose as a concequence of chemical interactions over the course of some billion years on the planet earth, possibly beginning as information coded in RNA, maybe on clays which aid the formation of these molecules. After trillions to the power of millions of spontaneously formed molecules a few of them could suceed in passing their information down, those that could do it effectively had an edge over the rest and would have eventually become dominant, any fluke symbiosis or mutation that confered advantage would be selected for in the population driving the formation of forms that could best protect the information (the first cell for instance being genetic material within a lipid blob). Once life appears it is subject to evolutionary pressures which will lead to the formation of new forms. Evolution far from being random is the most non-random selecting pressure on the planet, acting upon a set of infinitely random variation.

I am not claiming to speak for everybody, it is just an objective fact that in all the respected journals there are no ID papers being published. There are no high profile disputes between biologists over whether life was created to begin with.

And as for not wanting people to have a proper education - it is not akin to teaching both sides of history for history as a humanities subject deals with more intangiable things, one cannot say that water freezes at 50 degrees celsius and boils at 190 - there aren't two sides to the scientific fact of gravity where one ball falls up when the other falls down, we don't teach the planet earth was created when the chemistry of it mirrors that of our solar system, it can be dated and it's processes can be understood as all biproducts of gravity and radioactivity. Evolutionary biology is the framework of knowledge that we understand life on earth with, it is not dependent on a designer. The origin of life and how we teach it must likewise be built upon what facts that we know. We know that nearly all life on our planet uses DNA as a means of carrying genetic information, through comparision we know that all animals are related, that at one point we had a common ancestor. We know that life did not exist until around 3.5 billion years ago, from the rocks we can tell that the atmosphere was reducing back then. Adding a designer into the mix - something that there is not a shred of irrefutable evidence for - will not aid in giving us insight into what was going on.

Teaching ID in the Science class it is more like teaching Afrocentrism or Erich von Danikens: Chariots of the Gods story in the History class. They are frameworks of knowledge that take an assumption and will bend some evidence and take some selectively to support them but ideas that nontheless fail to explain as much evidence as the dominant theories.

If we ever found evidence for an intelligent designer then it would be revoltionary and would overturn everything we thought we know.

But that evidence would almost certainly prove that the designer was more akin to

than

 

[A_Wanderer]

In certain instances speculation is a good thing to do, but it is not fact. There are many times when what people assume to be true is not the case and it is only by observation and measurement that the facts can be found and the nature of what is going on understood.

 

[got2k9s]

Of course not, how else does one FIND evidence or proof without first speculation

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
In certain instances speculation is a good thing to do, but it is not fact. There are many times when what people assume to be true is not the case and it is only by observation and measurement that the facts can be found and the nature of what is going on understood.

RIGHT, and that need for observation and measurement comes from first, having reason to speculate, unless it's stumbled upon, as I said before.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that you are in a bit of circular logic here. Any speculation becomes irrelevent, hypothesis are constructed to explain the evidence and if they can do it well then they may become a theory. There is a philosophy to the scientific method and it does not include speculation and then calling that speculation a theory.

Are you saying that there is not evidence for a designer but we should treat it as a theory because we won't find it if we eliminate the possibility?

 

[anitram]

Why is it that ID supporters are obsessed with having it taught in a science class when it is in no way scientifically verifiable? It cannot be proven and it cannot be disproven.

If they are so fond of this theory, go push for its inclusion in a religious studies class, or alternately a philosophy class.

 

[Eliv8]

So who created

?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Exactly, the circle continues

I have a watertight theory, in one billion years our inheritors invent a time machine to go back in time and space and seed the early earth to make it habitable for life. Man created life on earth, life on earth formed man.

Disprove me!

 

[got2k9s]

I think that you are in a bit of circular logic here. Any speculation becomes irrelevent, hypothesis are constructed to explain the evidence and if they can do it well then they may become a theory. There is a philosophy to the scientific method and it does not include speculation and then calling that speculation a theory.

Are you saying that there is not evidence for a designer but we should treat it as a theory because we won't find it if we eliminate the possibility?

Again, I refer you to LivLuv's post which truly explains what I would say on this (last) aspect of your question. She explained how evidence is nearly impossible . . . in my words, don't bother looking. God IS superior and supercedes the world of science. But if you read what she wrote, it will, perhaps, fill in more blanks, here. I just agree with her.

As to the first part of your (above) post . . . it's not circular logic . . . hypotheses are not necessarily constructed AFTER evidence is found . . . I mean, an idea or 'speculation' *can* form based on what is SEEN and warrants explanation OR on what is thrown out there as a possibility, worthy of further explanation. (I'm talking about science IN GENERAL here, not necessarily origins, evoloution, etc.)

Your post prior to the ones I've responded to is lenthgy . . . but I will try to address a few thoughts I have re: it in a bit.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What does God have to do with Intelligent Design?

 

[got2k9s]

Why is it that ID supporters are obsessed with having it taught in a science class when it is in no way scientifically verifiable? It cannot be proven and it cannot be disproven.

If they are so fond of this theory, go push for its inclusion in a religious studies class, or alternately a philosophy class.

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

But you highlight a great point . . . it can not be disproven.
And yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S. Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

 

[got2k9s]

What does God have to do with Intelligent Design?

Well if ANYTHING is circular in my reasoning, it's that designer = God is automatically assumed (believed?) just like for you, designer = God is automatically dismissed.

Why is it easier for you to believe in ALIENS than a supernatural God?

 

[got2k9s]

Exactly, the circle continues

I have a watertight theory, in one billion years our inheritors invent a time machine to go back in time and space and seed the early earth to make it habitable for life. Man created life on earth, life on earth formed man.

Disprove me!

I'd find it easier to believe that SPOCK seeded the early earth.

And by the way, how can this be a theory, much less a watertight one? You have not one shred of proof about what will happen in the future, much less about what MIGHT happen in the future.

And you scientists looooovvvveeee your facts.

 

[BVS]

Again, I refer you to LivLuv's post which truly explains what I would say on this (last) aspect of your question. She explained how evidence is nearly impossible . . . in my words, don't bother looking. God IS superior and supercedes the world of science.

Then you can't teach it in a science class. You are contradicting yourself.

 

[got2k9s]

Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

 

[melon]

First off, I don't care what anyone's religious beliefs are; but I'm sorry. If any of you here HONESTLY believe that ID is a bona-fide scientific theory, then I believe our educational system has clearly failed to teach children what science is--and, more importantly, what science ISN'T.

Science, first off, is NOT a democracy. You cannot form an interest group and suddenly decide you have a scientific theory. Those who have said that "evolution is just a theory" should get an "F" for scientific knowledge. The common usage of "theory" really describes a "hypothesis," because a scientific theory has undergone vigorous analysis and experimentation to attain that status. "Intelligent design" is merely a hypothesis created by people with ideological aims--to put fundamentalist Christian religion into public schools. Sorry, that does NOT make science at all.

But honestly? Just because ID is a bunch of crap and the existence of God is impossible to definitively prove doesn't mean that people shouldn't have that "blind faith." I just take issue when people get so arrogant as to think that their "blind faith" supercedes others' rights to have different faiths or the lack thereof. That's why secular governments are the most peaceful and free ones, while theocracies always devolve into tyranny and oppression.

Melon

 

[melon]

Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

No, it can't be proven. The burden of proof is on ID to prove that it is true, not the other way around. If you want to learn ID, read a book on your own time or formulate a Sunday school class at your church.

Melon

 

[BonosSaint]

One of the most widely discussed topics in civilization is whether or not God exists and if so, what is His place and ours. Infinitely more than the small amount of time evolution is actually taught.
The God topic is not exactly getting short shrift.