Science/christianity/intelligent design

[shadetreecountryboy]

Ok. Here we go...

Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other. How? You ask.

Well, this is a new thread and we need to see some questions asked to focus on an answer.

I feel I can do this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.

Please keep in mind that this thread is NOT a debate for or against ANY religion; just a science oriented "how and why" showing explanations of some of the miracles in relation to science.

Any takers?

I start this thread in total humility, eager to learn, eager to show.:phones:

[eye on the skies]

Well, I think that science and religion definately work together. If you think otherwise, then something's wrong with your knowledge of religion or something's wrong with your knowledge of science.

 

Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong. All other theories of the universe's origin are the same. They aren't necessarily true, but they have yet to be proven wrong. Isn't it possible that there was someone from another plane of existence who created our own plane of existence before the laws of physics were ever even created, and in fact, he was the one to create them? It is possible.

 

I don't want to start some long debate, but I just want to take the opportunity to say that when you hear people say that they believe the earth is only ten thousand years old because it says so in the Bible, they are just being ignorant, a perfect example of the type of people whose religious knowledge is wrong. The Bible is meant to be understood on a more meaningful and at times metaphorical level. It is not to be understood as historical facts, rather it is a compilation of religious truths.

[shadetreecountryboy]

eye on the skies, I totally agree.

I think sometimes that one may confuse "in the begining" with the big bang. The bible says in the begining that the earth was void, that means the earth was in existence, it just was not in very good "working order. I also agree with you that this should not be some long debate.

Peaceout!

[UncleAl]

1) Who made the Maker? If the Maker spontaneously arose, who needs the Maker?

 

2) At any given moment the Earth is exactly 666 years old. Anything else palpable is the work of the Devil. Anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unfit to comment. (You wouldn't believe a coin embossed 400 BC, would you? Then why do you lend any credence a coin dated 400 AD? The Earth is only 666 years old!)

 

3) (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith! Science and religion are orthogonal.

 

4) Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India doing?

 

5) In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.

 

6) Don't be ineducably ignorant (stupid),

Google Images

Miller abiotic 4480 hits

[shadetreecountryboy]

Uncle Al:

Please tell ne where you got all of this info so I may study/read it.

Thanks,

shadetreecountryboy.

[pgrmdave]

Well, while Unc may not be the most understandable of our members, I think that he raises at least one good point, faith, by its definition, must defy knowledge (at least by any working definition I've heard). You can have faith that something in the future will occur, but the stronger the knowledge behind it, the less faith is needed. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. It doesn't take much faith to believe that, it's been rising and setting like clockwork since my birth. I also have faith that I will graduate with a degree in computer science. A bit more faith is required as I have not yet completed my coursework and I know things can go wrong, but if things progress as they have been than I will. I also have faith that things tend to work out well for people, and that if you try to be happy, you will be. That takes a lot of faith, because there are a lot of counter examples and no way to prove it either way.

 

All this means is that if you can "prove" a religion true, then it requires no faith. If it is entirely faith based, then it cannot be rooted in empirical truths. Unc's equation: (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith - is an interesting one in that it admits the possibility that there is a disconnect between reality and the testable reality. It is in this realm that there are the most arguments between science and religion, as science tends to contend that there is very little physical that is not empirical while religions tend to claim the opposite.

 

Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong./QUOTE]

 

This is patently false - theories can be proven wrong, because they make predictions. Theories cannot necessarily be proven right, but it is wrong to say that they cannot be proven false.

[Thunderbird]

What does this have to with chemisty?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is where religion and science blend. Religion has been around since the beginning of civilization. Unlike today, where we have science, religion was previously part of the human perception of reality, being used to explain things around them. This adds to roughly 8 hours per day for 10,000 years. What this all means, is it is very likely that religion has been engrained into human genetics sort of the way unique animal behavior becomes engrained into the genetic of animals.

 

If it is in the genetics, it is likely that humans can not fully neutralized those 10,000 years of genetic programming, in a few generations, any more than it can alter other genetic factors, using only the power of the human mind. Religion has tried for centuries to alter instinct with will power, sometimes using repression. But this has not fully removed instinct. All it leads to is repression and sublimation, where the instinct changes form into another outlet. It is also possible, the repression of religious conditioned genetics, will lead to a form of sublimation.

 

I am trying to be true to science, evolution and genetic theory, using a constant form of forced or voluntary human conformity training of the mind for 10,000 years, setting the parameter for genetic changes. If that is not enough we meet to revise these theories. The analogy that results is sort of an extra arm in the brain, so to speak. The glove has always been religion. We can take the glove off, but that doesn't not eliminate the genetic arm. That arm will still be active, even after 100 years of atheism, looking for another glove. It could take thousands of years until the brain is totally reprogrammed. But in the mean time, the arm is still functional even if it is repressed. The affect can be seen with the constant need of fads. These fit like a glove, but they soon wear out. The arm is still looking for meaning, finding a new glove. That gets discarded, etc. Those with religion can do the same thing without change, because the glove fits for them, so it is not easily discarded.

 

From the point of view of science and psychology, the genetic change is there. If one wishes to go green and be all natural, one can not use synthetic gloves. One needs to use a natural glove on which it was formed. It would be like hunger. We can eat anything we want including junk food. But the genetics of the human body are optimized for better food. But it can still survive on less, but this could lead to other health issues.

[eye on the skies]

oops. I didn't mean that it couldn't be proven wrong, but that it has yet to be proven wrong. sorry!

[UncleAl]

If one wishes to go green and be all natural, one can not use synthetic gloves.

 

Buncha crap. What is unnatural about petroleum? What is natural about tanned leather? Where do you place fabricated Hevea brasiliensis latex rubber? Do you think gloves grow on a vine like kiwi fruit (left handed gloves in the northern hemisphere, right handed gloves in the southern hemisphere)?

 

Gore investment body closes $683m fund

FT.com / Companies / Financial services - Gore investment body closes $683m fund

 

(1) Gore launches a major campaign to make society go Green, posturing himself as on a noble cause to save the planet;

(2) Gore personally invests in businesses designed to reap profit from the Green movement.

(3) Gore is a liar and a crook, and an arbitrageur for the flow in-between.

 

STURGEON WAS AN OPTIMIST

 

"I will glady save your soul next Tuesday if you give me everything of value you own today." Every priest says "Hodie mihi, cras tibi." Only a fool believes in post mortem escrow closing. Enviro-whinerism is the confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance.

 

A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO RELIGIONS

[HydrogenBond]

Uncle Al I agree with you. I was using the green-natural as a parody for one of the latest gloves that will be discarded, like bottled water. I also agree that Gore is using green to make greenbacks. Although, he also seems to believe he is the Pope of the environmental religion. He is gathering his tithes from the faithful. He is waging political war against the non-green infidels. We have the chant "repent, the end of the world is near". This is rallying the faithful to spread the gospel according to the word of Gore. The arm is using bits and pieces from its long evolution. This is what makes it effective. It came from a inner template, and seems to have all the fingers and thumb.

[sanctus]

This thread has been moved here, for as long as it stays "scientific" it will stay here; but if it degrades into proving intelligent design it won't belong to philosophy of science anymore.

[modest]

I wrote this reply thinking the thread would get moved to the theology forum rather than Philosophy of Science. Now I'm not sure it's appropriate, but here it is anyway I guess:

 

I disagree with a few statements made so far…

 

Ok. Here we go...

Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other.

How? You ask.

Well, this is a new thread and we need to see some questions asked to focus on an answer.

 

I would like to ask a couple questions on this, but I’ll wait ‘til a couple quick things are cleared up.

 

I feel I can do this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.

 

It is wholly incorrect to say there are 2 versions of the bible that Christians teach from. There are many more. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox bible has a much larger canon than yours. The Coptic Christians of Egypt were probably founded on the oldest canonical gospel of all. Their version of the Christian bible is not the same as England put together in the reformation. It is very far removed from the Protestant version you mention. The KJV is less extensive than the Roman Catholic version which is again less extensive than the Greek Orthodox version.

 

All of these bibles (and there are more examples) are different than the books taught from by the earliest Christians of the first few centuries AD. For example, you will not find the Gospel of Thomas in any of the versions I just mentioned or the King James, yet people used it in the early Christian church.

 

In addition to all these different versions there are also different translations. Put all this together and I’m afraid what you’re saying:

 

this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.

 

shows a very narrow mindset that fails even to acknowledge the extent of your own religion much less beliefs based on something besides.

 

Please keep in mind that this thread is NOT a debate for or against ANY religion; just a science oriented "how and why" showing explanations of some of the miracles in relation to science.

 

The common understanding of ‘science’ and ‘miracle’ would not allow science to “show explanations” for a miracle. If science explains it then by definition it isn’t a miracle. If it is a miracle then by definition science can’t explain it.

 

Well, I think that science and religion definately work together. If you think otherwise, then something's wrong with your knowledge of religion or something's wrong with your knowledge of science.

 

On a personal level the two things may work together fine. A lot of good cosmology has been done by not only catholic priests but the church itself. The Pope has an observatory in his summer home after all. Maybe Catholics are trying to make up for condemning Galileo, or maybe - well, who knows their motivations. Point is - the Jesuit priests operating the observatory and doing the science have no personal problem between religion and science.

 

The problem comes when one (science or religion) tries to stifle the other. When religion says the sun circles the earth or there is no such thing as a vacuum and theists kills people who disagree; then, I agree, someone is misunderstanding religion. Where Christians and Muslims are being imprisoned in China, you have the opposite side of the coin.

 

Science deals with observation and descriptions of nature while religion deals with faith. As your bible points out in Hebrews 11, religion is having faith in things that can’t be seen. That is fundamentally different than science.

 

Intelligent design is a theory

 

It is not. To be a scientific theory an hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design cannot be tested because it makes no predictions. It is not falsifiable.

 

, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong.

 

I agree. Intelligent Design (as it often stands now) cannot be proven wrong. It is an undeniable expression of faith like one’s belief in God. It cannot be tested. While there is nothing wrong with that in religion, there most certainly is something wrong with that in science. Which is why it doesn’t get to be called a theory.

 

All other theories of the universe's origin are the same.

 

Depends on what you mean “universe’s origin”. If I said “An opera singer caused the Big Bang by singing the universe into existence ” then I agree, that cannot be proven wrong just like intelligent design can’t be proven wrong. Both would be bad science. If I said the observable universe was a rapidly inflating bunch of quantum fluctuations and cosmological perturbations 13.7 billion years ago then that can be proven wrong. It is a testable hypothesis that makes predictions - good science.

 

Isn't it possible that there was someone from another plane of existence who created our own plane of existence before the laws of physics were ever even created, and in fact, he was the one to create them? It is possible.

 

And for all the reasons I’ve outlined above this is religion rather than science. With that prerequisite then yes - it is possible.

 

I don't want to start some long debate, but I just want to take the opportunity to say that when you hear people say that they believe the earth is only ten thousand years old because it says so in the Bible, they are just being ignorant, a perfect example of the type of people whose religious knowledge is wrong.

 

This is not fair to people of many Orthodox religions. They know their bible. The timeline is very clear from Adam to David or Solomon (which we can date).

 

From the verse “God created the heaven and the earth” to the creation of Adam is explicitly six days (six mornings and six evenings). From Adam to Jesus is four thousand years give or take a few. Religious people aren’t making this up - it is what the book says. The genealogy is there.

 

The Bible is meant to be understood on a more meaningful and at times metaphorical level. It is not to be understood as historical facts, rather it is a compilation of religious truths.

 

Once again, this is a fine belief but it is not science nor is it the belief of other theists.

 

eye on the skies, I totally agree.

I think sometimes that one may confuse "in the begining" with the big bang. The bible says in the begining that the earth was void, that means the earth was in existence, it just was not in very good "working order. I also agree with you that this should not be some long debate.

Peaceout!

 

So people don’t misunderstand. The first thing your bible says God did was create the earth and the sky. Those are the first words of the first book. Less than a week later the sky and the earth were fully formed with human life. I, of course, have no problem if that is not your belief (it certainly isn’t mine after all), But we must recognize that is what it says.

 

oops. I didn't mean that it couldn't be proven wrong, but that it has yet to be proven wrong. sorry!

 

No, I think you were right - intelligent design is non-falsifiable. But, I think this is ok for religion. Would you want God to be testable or provable? Shouldn’t it be a matter of faith?

 

-modest

[jedaisoul]

Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other.

No! Science and intelligent design work independently not together. They deal with entirely different things. Science deals with what is observable in the universe. ID deals with a belief system.

 

Discussion of ID does not belong in the Philosophy of Science area. As others have said, it is not a science. It makes no predictions and is not falsifiable. You either believe it, or you don't. That's your choice, but it is nothing to do with science, or the philosophy of science.

[eye on the skies]

You either believe it, or you don't.

 

 

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

 

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

[freeztar]

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

 

Sure there is!

Take the Theory of Relativity for example. We can test this theory and indeed it has been tested in many different ways. So, you are correct to say that the Theory of Relativity is not necessarily *true*. The theory is seen as a good theory because it passes any test thrown at it so far.

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

 

ID is not a testable theory, therefore it is not science.

[modest]

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

 

I say this with the best intentions eye on the skies. It would really benefit you to read the wikipedia articles on theory and scientific method. Particularly to understand just what a scientific theory entails. If you did this it could only help you strengthen your argument because you seem to have some huge misconceptions about these topics. For instance:

 

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

-APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

 

It should be easy for you to see intelligent design cannot meet this qualification. Furthermore:

 

In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework... which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.

Wikipedia - theory

 

Once again, intelligent design cannot meet this qualification. These are essential criteria. In everyday usage the word 'theory' can mean something that may be right or wrong but isn't yet known. In science this doesn't fit at all.

 

In the language of science we would say intelligent design is "not even wrong". Something that is not even wrong means that there is no way to test it or use it for prediction or in any useful way. Such an idea is not part of science which is a discipline of testing, predicting, measuring, describing, and understanding nature. You simply can't do any of that with ID. Douglas Adams' idea that the universe was sneezed into existence is not even wrong.

 

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

 

ID does not contradict science because it is not in any way part of science. It is faith like a theistic belief in God. Faith is believing in something with no evidence or support for the object of faith. Such is intelligent design.

 

-modest