Intelligent Design POLL

[Boerseun]

Your detractors are barely old enough to call themselves adults, certainly notr masters -

You pulling rank again, MagnetMan? I thought we've been through this already.

In Science, age means nothing - only the argument. Your airy-fairy 'master' terminology means absolutely squat. If you understand anything of science, you should understand that. You should also be aware of the fact that we don't actually give a rip if we qualify as 'masters' (whatever the hell that might be) in your eyes or not.

 

QC, you should also be aware that the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You came with the 'aura' story, prove it now. I don't have to prove it's non-existence. I guess you didn't know that, either? Where's www.randi.org's deposit slip in your name?

 

Come, now.

[hallenrm]

I had cast my vote on this poll a few weeks back, and then never cared to see its progress, mainly because I am indeed a bit ignorant about this intelleligent design, and it is a topic a care very little about:)

 

But, today I casually opened this thread just out of curiosity because it keeps popping up on the list of subscribed threads in my user CP. I am glad that I did so after I had a casual glance at the discussions going on.

 

Let me now forward my opinion:) But before doing so Let me ask Boersun et al "What in their opinion constitutes science?" Is it a book of sacred truths that one must worship as long as one lives; or is it a method that propels one to find newer states of knowledge.

 

If it is latter, one have an humble attitude, about phenomena that have jinxed many people and about which the so called scientific methods have not yielded any positive results. Because neither the science nor the present methods of exploring phenomena are absolutly final.

 

One can say so, if one reads the history of science a bit judiciously. The thomsons model of atom was proved to be incorrect by the experiments of Rutherford (Thomson could not have possibly done those experiments himself). The Rutherford's model gave way to the Bohr's model which quite lately gave way to the present quantum mechanical model.

 

That is just an example! The history of science, abounds in such examples, that is the reason science enjoys the reputation that it does today.

 

So, my humble submission to some participants in this discussion, "please learn to be humble, humility never hurts, it can only help in the long run"

 

What do you say, my good old buddy Racoon, doesn't it echoes your thoughts posted on several threads in the recent past?;) :)

[Boerseun]

Hallen, I would like to make a few points clear about Science in general, that a lot of people don't get, including, funny enough, most ID proponents.

 

Science is a methodology used to prove or disprove theories experimentally. If a theory can't be proven or disproven experimentally, then it gets relegated to Philosophy or Theology. Those are the things that are taken on faith, because proof simply doesn't exist.

 

Science, also, is a collection of theories. None of them assumes to be the Final Answer to anything. Science is simply the asymptotic approach to the Truth, and theories continuously 'evolve' to fine-tune our understanding of the universe. In this way, Einstein fine-tuned Newton, and Einstein himself is being fine-tuned through Quantum Theory, which might be completely changed by String Theory. It is very important for you to understand this - Science has never claimed to be the Final Answer, precisely because that's not how Science works.

 

Intelligent Design makes claims that has to be taken on faith - that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for Life. The reason they make this claim is because of certain weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory. What they are basically saying is "There are some holes in your theory, and because of that, I am right". They do not have any proof at all, except for this. Their conclusion is a leap of faith, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements for a scientifically sound theory. We should not be teaching ID in schools, because it is not science.

 

As to your "a book of sacred truths that one must worship", no, that's not science. Science is a methodology, a process, an evolution of thought and understanding.

 

As to your "please learn to be humble, humility never hurts, it can only help in the long run", I will refer you to my previous post. All that counts is the argument and proof. Age and attitude, matter of fact, learning, education, tertiary education, none of these matter at all. That's Science. You can be an illiterate hillbilly from the boondocks, if you come up with a theory that survives empirical scrutiny, you could be the next Einstein.

[hallenrm]

Well said Boerseun Indeed!

 

But I have a lingering doubt. What if some scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? What if these scientists are the authority? How does one than prove or disprove, If all the proofs have to get the approval of a certain set of people in authority?

 

I am not referring to anybody in the Hypography community alone! It is a mindset of some scientists.

 

In our country there is an heirachy of civil courts, High courts and then the Supreme court. If one is not satisfied by the judgement of a civil court, one can appeal in a high court, if the judgement is still not very satisfactory one can appeal to the Supreme court.

 

Is there such an heirarchy in science? If yes, what are its credentials!;)

[MagnetMan]

If it is latter, one have an humble attitude, about phenomena that have jinxed many people and about which the so called scientific methods have not yielded any positive results. Because neither the science nor the present methods of exploring phenomena are absolutly final.

 

So, my humble submission to some participants in this discussion, "please learn to be humble, humility never hurts, it can only help in the long run"

 

There is a distinct dfference between cleverness and wisdom. One can be born with the former. The later only comes via experience. The question about ID has plagued mankind for millennia. Now with instant access to the collective mind, via the internet, an international conversation about the distance between Man and God, can reach across racial and ethnic barriers that were formerly insurmountable. Thus if the question that is at the heart of every sincere seeker is ever to be answered, a global-wide network to do so is finally at hand.

 

One metaphsyical fact is common amongst us all - no matter how large, loving and friendly our circle of family, friends and aquaintenances are, there remains an infinite well of secret loneliness inside each one of us. The true depth, and in many cases even a dim awareness of the presence of this loneliness, cannot be known until one meets face to face with the hidden Godhead. The emence sense of relief that one's self, and mankind in general, is not alone in this vast universe, that every thought, every private hope and prayer has indeed been witnessed and shared by a Compassionate Godhead, cannot be adequately described in words. That ecstatic state has over-whelmed all our saints and holy Ones. And the reason why that meeting had had to take place from time to time, has been to uphold our fading faith and bring hope and affirmation to help us along in our lonely journey.

 

The gradual evolution of the human intellect has, for the past twenty five centuries, brought the excitement and the discoveries of science to light the way ahead for us. Yet. underlying all scientific rules and laws regarding the iimpirical invetsigations of universal forces, remains the ancient desire to know who God really is and what His purpose may be. The light of science has gradually pushed the loneliness into the back of our minds. Yet there it remains. And now, having discovered that the atom is the source of all forces and that it, in itself, is infinite - and that we are physically limited, by the speed of light, to remain trapped forever in this tiny suburb of our galaxy and never know what really lies beyond, for many of us, that ancient sense of loneliness has resurfaced. The need to know who God is and what the ulrimate purpose of our lives is, is even more cogent than ever.

 

Since the so-called hippie movement of love and peace in the 1960's, perhaps as many as two hundred million westerners, all raised and educated by the Lodge of Science, have experienced at various degrees, a spiritual awakening of some sort, that has reminded them of the well of loneliness within. Despite their respect for science, millions have found great comfort in some form of contact with an invisible witness. That mass awakening has resulted in a general awarness of the pollution our industry has on the global enviroment, and a mass clean-up of sorts has started. There is also a greater awareness of the essential goodness of other religions and a greater degree of affection for general brotherliness of the specie. All of this heralds the onset of a New Age of self-cosnciousness and a corresponding deeper need to know who God is.

 

Definitive answers have yet to be found. But the need to find them is undeniable. Therefore the statement above, made by Hal, unculcates a necessary sense of common purpose and is much appreciated, I am sure, by all concerned.

[Freddy]

No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God does not exist. When someone can please wake me up.

[Pyrotex]

...What if some scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? What if these scientists are the authority? How does one than prove or disprove, If all the proofs have to get the approval of a certain set of people in authority?...Is there such an heirarchy in science? If yes, what are its credentials!:)

Scientists have a vested interest in 1. getting published, and 2. having others quote them. That's it. There hasn't been a "status quo" in science since Newton's "Principia".

 

Science progress, just like people do, by having "models" to explain observations. Thomson had his "model" and it DID explain many observations. Rutherford made new observations which Thomson's model couldn't explain, so Rutherfore built a new "model". And so it goes. This is how progress is made.

 

You have a "model" to explain your observations. This "model" is an idealized form of "the Church" with its authorities, its punishment of heretics, its fight to preserve a "status quo" of scripture and power.

 

You invariably use this "model" to express everything you see in science and scientific arguments. There is just one leeeeeeetle problem, here.

 

Your "model" doesn't explain the process, the history, the arguments, the publishing, the debating, the search for evidence, the interpretation of evidence, the procedures... indeed, the "game" of Science. Your "model" doesn't reflect how Science is carried on -- AT ALL. At ANY LEVEL. Your "model" reflects only the way Religion is carried on.

 

Science is indeed a Game. It is serious and it is fun. People can become famous by creating a new theory and finding sufficient evidence for it -- OR -- by finding sufficient evidence to "topple" an existing theory. In Science, BOTH are fair game and both get applause, kudos, and footnotes in history.

 

Science has no "status quo" to speak of. Religion does. Its called "dogma". And improving upon dogma or finding fault with it is not a "game" -- it is "heresy" and it can get you ostracized, exhiled or killed.

 

You do not appear to have a conceptual "model" with which you can intelligently discuss Science or scientists. As long as you think that Science is just another form of "faith" {snicker, snicker} you will be blind, deaf and clueless.

[Pyrotex]

No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God does not exist. When someone can please wake me up.

Why so narrow a request? Let's expand that list, shall we? :)

 

Wake us up if you can prove/disprove ANY of the following:

God (Jehovah)

God (Shiva)

God (Jove)

God (Satan)

God (Baal)

Santa Claus

Unicorns

Fairies

Ghosts

Souls

Angels

Demons

Poltergeists

Blay-el-Zikorr, Invisible Emperor of Cosmic Holy Evil

[kmarinas86]

In the future we will have genetically engineered unicorns and carebears. Carebears will be hard to build because their biological spectral luminescent lasers bend in midair, a tough engineering challenge us intelligent designers :hyper: :) . Also, without without antigrav technology we couldn't give them their proper home LOL :( .

[Pyrotex]

...As always, my love to you all. :(

Gosh, how come your postings always drip such intense sarcasm and self-righteous loathing????

 

Don't answer that. :)

[Cedars]

Why so narrow a request? Let's expand that list, shall we? :)

 

Wake us up if you can prove/disprove ANY of the following:

 

You forgot the Vegans!! *reference Contact the movie*

[hallenrm]

Science is indeed a Game. It is serious and it is fun. People can become famous by creating a new theory and finding sufficient evidence for it -- OR -- by finding sufficient evidence to "topple" an existing theory. In Science, BOTH are fair game and both get applause, kudos, and footnotes in history.

 

Science has no "status quo" to speak of. Religion does. Its called "dogma". And improving upon dogma or finding fault with it is not a "game" -- it is "heresy" and it can get you ostracized, exhiled or killed.

 

You do not appear to have a conceptual "model" with which you can intelligently discuss Science or scientists. As long as you think that Science is just another form of "faith" {snicker, snicker} you will be blind, deaf and clueless.

 

Agreed! I agree to every word of yours quoted above!

 

But, there is always a difference between what is and what ought to be!

 

Between the ideal and the practice!

 

And there are areas where the practice of science today overlaps with the practice of religion yesterday!

 

It takes courage to admit the loopholes in the beautiful model one worships.:)

[Pyrotex]

...And there are areas where the practice of science today overlaps with the practice of religion yesterday!...

There appear to be good reasons why I cannot trust YOU to point these out with historic accuracy and objective integrity. I cite the post on Thomson/Rutherford as evidence.

[Boerseun]

Pyrotex:

 

You're my hero. If I was a dog, I'd be humpin' your leg right now.

 

Sorry - would've sent rep an' ****, but I need to spread it aroun' sum. So you gonna have to settle for a leg-hump.

[Pyrotex]

...Sorry - would've sent rep an' ****, but I need to spread it aroun' sum. So you gonna have to settle for a leg-hump.

{sigh!} Okay, Boerseun. This wouldn't be the first time. :)

[Boerseun]

{sigh!} Okay, Boerseun. This wouldn't be the first time. :)

Just sit still this time, and pretend you're enjoying it, okay.

[Freddy]

What no Santa either?