Jump to content

Ben Stein, the Michael Moore of intelligent design?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'm looking forward to seeing it. I enjoy a good comedy. It should spin up the moonbats but won't convince "Big Science".

That's because SE already knows how the universe was created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me from the first trailer and how I've heard others talk that we (myself) as atheists "show contempt for the people that have religious faith" to quote Jeff B in another thread. When in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. If there is an alternative to evolution/natural selection/Darwinism if you prefer and factual theory besides one 2000 year old book to make your point, bring it on, I'll look at it. I have always believed that whatever your religious faith, it is up to you the individual to practice as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I just don't believe it has a place in the public schools or in government. This concerns me, I'm beginning to wonder if I have any place in the Republican Party anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It amazes me from the first trailer and how I've heard others talk that we (myself) as atheists "show contempt for the people that have religious faith" to quote Jeff B in another thread. When in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. If there is an alternative to evolution/natural selection/Darwinism if you prefer and factual theory besides one 2000 year old book to make your point, bring it on, I'll look at it. I have always believed that whatever your religious faith, it is up to you the individual to practice as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I just don't believe it has a place in the public schools or in government. This concerns me, I'm beginning to wonder if I have any place in the Republican Party anymore.

Darwinism does not explain life or the existance of the universe. Creationism deals with a completely different subject than Darwinism. There is no scientific explanation for life. If you believe life happened without a god that belief, like the belief that god was involved, is based in faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwinism does not explain life or the existance of the universe. Creationism deals with a completely different subject than Darwinism. There is no scientific explanation for life. If you believe life happened without a god that belief, like the belief that god was involved, is based in faith.

 

 

Why does there need to be an explanation? Whats wrong with saying we really don't have all of the answers yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwinism does not explain life or the existance of the universe. Creationism deals with a completely different subject than Darwinism. There is no scientific explanation for life. If you believe life happened without a god that belief, like the belief that god was involved, is based in faith.

 

 

So, do you agree Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Creationism deals with a completely different subject than Darwinism.

I don't think that's true, Dog. Creationism in its "scientific" forms purports to be an alternative explanation for biological diversity.

 

Also, "Darwinism" has various negative political connotations. e.g., "social Darwinism" and a narrow scientific meaning, i.e., strict reliance on selective pressure as the force behind speciation and extinction. A more neutral and encompassing term would be, "the theory of evolution". The choice of words by the anti-scientific side is completely intentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was an Intelligent Design curriculum when I was in school. Easy to ace. Every question on every exam could be answered "God did it". Of course that wouldn't make me the scientific wonder I am today. But my GPA would have benefited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more gratuitous comments:

 

The intelligent design critique comes almost entirely from outside biology, which explains why its proponents are willing to reject the overarching theory on the basis of various inconsistencies in the evidence for evolution. Biologists, on the other hand, find the theory indispensable for important areas of work apart from evolutionary biology per se, e.g., molecular genetics, despite its imperfections. Even if evolution is wrong, it's got a great deal more explanatory power and usefulness as a basis for theoretical and applied biology (the stuff that prevents and cures disease) than intelligent design.

 

Consider a group of second rate biologists rejecting post-Newtonian physics because weak forces aren't well understood and the Big Bang is tough concept that isn't in the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwinism does not explain life or the existance of the universe. Creationism deals with a completely different subject than Darwinism. There is no scientific explanation for life. If you believe life happened without a god that belief, like the belief that god was involved, is based in faith.

 

That's a gross mischaracterization at best. "Science" or better scientists, look for natural explanations for those things we currently do not understand. 1)There are hypothesis for the generation of life based on repeatable experiments and observations in nature, and 2) there is no basis to believe in something for which there is no evidence in nature or in experimentation.

 

I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence to suggest one. The disbelief in a god does not require faith. I believe in a non-supernatural process for the generation of life because the system it generated in is a system of natural laws and processes. A natural explanation for the generation of life does not require faith if there is no logical alternative.

 

To put it another way, even though we don't have a complete explanation for how all cancers are formed, does that mean that cancer is created by God, and something that should be accepted on faith?

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
It amazes me from the first trailer and how I've heard others talk that we (myself) as atheists "show contempt for the people that have religious faith" to quote Jeff B in another thread. When in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. If there is an alternative to evolution/natural selection/Darwinism if you prefer and factual theory besides one 2000 year old book to make your point, bring it on, I'll look at it. I have always believed that whatever your religious faith, it is up to you the individual to practice as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I just don't believe it has a place in the public schools or in government. This concerns me, I'm beginning to wonder if I have any place in the Republican Party anymore.

 

I don't have time today to post some examples of the contempt shown by some atheists here towards people who profess to have a religion. Maybe later if I can get back to it. You may be in the minority and good on ya for your tolerance. Others here, not so much...

 

For the record I'm a card-carrying agnostic because I don't have the answers and at least I'm rational enough to admit it. Neither side knows for sure what the REAL truth is and its arrogant IMO to think you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My contempt comes from the moonbats who try to force their religion into our schools and government. I really don't care if a bunch of irrational people want to do weird stuff on their own dime. If you want to live a life of delusion, have at it.

But because I call a spade a spade, doesn't mean I have contempt for every irrational person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My contempt comes from the moonbats who try to force their religion into our schools and government. I really don't care if a bunch of irrational people want to do weird stuff on their own dime. If you want to live a life of delusion, have at it.

But because I call a spade a spade, doesn't mean I have contempt for every irrational person.

 

Your honor, I present exhibit #1 of the aformentioned arrogance....

Link to post
Share on other sites
A natural explanation for the generation of life does not require faith if there is no logical alternative.

That would be fine if there was a "natural explanation". There is no natural explanation for the universe. In the absense of any evidence the belief that one exists requires faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be fine if there was a "natural explanation". There is no natural explanation for the universe. In the absense of any evidence the belief that one exists requires faith.

Let's try this again, ie. back to basic logic for you.

 

Argument:

Evidence supporting a hypothesis in repeatable experimentation or observations in nature = basis for belief that hypothesis is valid

 

Converse of argument:

A basis for belief that a hypothesis is valid = repeatable experimentation or observations in nature provide supporting evidence

 

Inverse of argument:

An absence of evidence supporting a hypothesis in repeatable experimentation or observations in nature = basis for not believing that hypothesis is valid.

 

Contrapositive of argument

(not enough coffee to write a coherant contrapositive argument, I'll get back to it later if need be.)

 

Okay, your argument is twofold, but you assume the conclusion of the first in order to support the second.

 

Your argument: There is a god. There is no evidence to say that god did not create life. (Your argument continues from here, but this is the part I'm dealing with now.)

 

So, if there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a god in repeatable experimentation or observations in nature , there is no basis to believe that there is a god. If there is no god, then god could not have created life.

 

There is vast amounts of evidence that the universe we live in is a construct of physical and natural laws (as opposed to the supernatural). There is is no evidence supporting the involvement of supernatural laws. There is evidence supporting the theory that life generated based on natural means alone, and no evidence supporting the a supernatural creation of life.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, back to the topic at hand. Ben Stein has repeatedly proven himself to be able to intelligently argue his beliefs. I couldn't download the trailer, but will be interested to see what his argument is.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, back to the topic at hand. Ben Stein has repeatedly proven himself to be able to intelligently argue his beliefs. I couldn't download the trailer, but will be interested to see what his argument is.

 

NS

 

That's what I thought when I heard about this movie. However, whenever something is advertised by Rush Limbaugh I immediately see red flags.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, back to the topic at hand. Ben Stein has repeatedly proven himself to be able to intelligently argue his beliefs. I couldn't download the trailer, but will be interested to see what his argument is.

 

NS

Yes, I look forward to seeing it.

I hope he can convince me that God indeed exists and must be worshipped. It will make my life here easier and I can again hang my hat in the big tent known as the Republican party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I thought when I heard about this movie. However, whenever something is advertised by Rush Limbaugh I immediately see red flags.

 

Whenever I see anything about religion disguised as third rate science I see red flags, I'm not sure Rush Limbaugh could make the situation any worse in my mind. However, the credibility, or lack thereof of the messenger, often has little to do with the message. But, I would like to see if Mr. Stein can bring any more intelligence to the ID argument.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your argument: There is a god. I never argued that there is a god. There is no evidence to say that god did not create life. (Your argument continues from here, but this is the part I'm dealing with now.)

 

So, if there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a god in repeatable experimentation or observations in nature , there is no scientific basis to believe that there is a god. Correct, the belief in god is faith based If there is no god, then god could not have created life.

 

There is vast amounts of evidence that the universe we live in is a construct of physical and natural laws (as opposed to the supernatural). There is is no evidence supporting the involvement of supernatural laws. There is evidence supporting the theory that life generated based on natural means alone, No, there is not. the belief that life or the universe was generated by natural means is not founded on evidence, it is based in faith just like the belief in god

 

Bottom line, we don't know and since we don't know we should keep an open mind which I think is Mr. Stein's point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"which I think is Mr. Stein's point" -Quote Dog

 

 

Are you saying that you have seen this movie? Because that's the original question of my thread. If you haven't, how do you know what Mr. Stein's point actually is, just by watching a trailer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog,

Once again, you fail basic logic. Next time pay attention in class.

Stating that there is a supernatural cause for something to occur implies that there is a supernatural force (god, or whatever you want to call it). As for the rest, re-read, and hopefully this time, apply thought and analysis to what you read.

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
"which I think is Mr. Stein's point" -Quote Dog

Are you saying that you have seen this movie? Because that's the original question of my thread. If you haven't, how do you know what Mr. Stein's point actually is, just by watching a trailer?

Prognostication and reading minds is one edge those who rely on the supernatural have an advantage over those of us who must live in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dog,

Once again, you fail basic logic. Next time pay attention in class.

Stating that there is a supernatural cause for something to occur implies that there is a supernatural force (god, or whatever you want to call it). As for the rest, re-read, and hopefully this time, apply thought and analysis to what you read.

NS

Where did I state there is a supernatural cause for anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prognostication and reading minds is one edge those who rely on the supernatural have an advantage over those of us who must live in reality.

Which is why I said I THINK this is Stein's point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog,

 

In the realm of science there is no solid evidence of a supernatural being. So postulating that there is one immediately takes a discussion away from science. It is now some sort of theological discussion.

 

Scientists readily admit that there is no General Unifying Theory. There remain many unanswered questions. The causation of the universe as we can see and the genesis of life in it are chief among these.

 

But to say that there is no evidence that there is a natural cause for these is vastly overstating the creationist case to a foolish degree. Much research and many studies have been done both in biological and physics that points to a natural cause. Basic cell structures have been created in labs from inert matter. Physics can give a description leading back to the millisecond before our observable universe was created in the big bang.

 

Yes there may be a creator, but if so the creator has hidden its tracks to the degree that science cannot find any trace of it. Creationism isn't based on science any more than Helios pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But to say that there is no evidence that there is a natural cause for these is vastly overstating the creationist case to a foolish degree. Much research and many studies have been done both in biological and physics that points to a natural cause. Basic cell structures have been created in labs from inert matter. Physics can give a description leading back to the millisecond before our observable universe was created in the big bang.

If a life form (us) succeeds in creating a cell or even another form of life from dirt does that disprove the existence of a god?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a life form (us) succeeds in creating a cell or even another form of life from dirt does that disprove the existence of a god?

Not at all, nor does it prove the existence of a god. They are mutually exclusive events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a life form (us) succeeds in creating a cell or even another form of life from dirt does that disprove the existence of a god?

 

 

Of course not. What it would do is blow an even bigger hole in your statement that there is no evidence POINTING TO life emerging in the absence of a supernatural being.

___________________

 

Caps are an edit for clarity

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not. What it would do is blow an even bigger hole in your statement that there is no evidence POINTING TO life emerging in the absence of a supernatural being.

___________________

 

Caps are an edit for clarity

If we created life in a test tube it would shed no light on the question of the existance of god.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a life form (us) succeeds in creating a cell or even another form of life from dirt does that disprove the existence of a god?

 

To highlight the absurdity of this question, I am going to put it into its argument form using another scenario.

 

1. My mother makes cakes.

2. I made a cake.

Therefore 3. My mother doesn't exist.

 

Hardly worth asking eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we created life in a test tube it would shed no light on the question of the existance of god.

None whatsoever, unless you're just looking for something/someone to worship.

 

 

Edit: which is your perogative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of god looked at from a logical standpoint - by which I mean ignoring faith - is a question of probabilities.

 

The more we can explain without appeal to a supernatural force, the less probable it is that the there is a supernatural force. This is even more true when the supernatural force is supposed to act in the physical world.

 

This is why as a human race we used to think gods pulled the sun across the sky and we now look for god's hand in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

Much like a man on trial is either guilty or innocent, there either is or isn't this supernatural being. And much like a man on trial evidence is going to point one way or the other. The stronger the evidence points in one direction the less probable it is for the other side.

 

Also keep in mind that intelligent design as it is fleshed out is the offspring of creationism and as such makes some highly improbable and completely unscientific claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To highlight the absurdity of this question, I am going to put it into its argument form using another scenario.

 

1. My mother makes cakes.

2. I made a cake.

Therefore 3. My mother doesn't exist.

 

Hardly worth asking eh?

You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

Because the moonbats want ID to have the same scientific significance as evolution. It doesn't deserve it. Teach ID at your home, or in your church, or private Moonbat U, but it doesn't belong in public school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

 

While some people cover their ears, the more typical response is rolling their eyes. Intelligent Design is not science. It is the teleological argument that belongs in a philosophy of religion class and not science class.

 

Should we be discussing the problem of evil in science class as well?

 

I have no problem with the teleological argument although I think it is flawed on a number of counts, including its inability to predict or explain the existence of imperfect designs.

 

My problem is with the Creationists who wish to present it as science to further an agenda using public schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

 

 

Reasonable people don't want to hear it in a science classroom -seeing that's its got nothing to do with science. You're perfectly free to blather about it in your church though

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

 

Perhaps people are 'closed minded' because ITS OBVIOUS BULLSHIT thats just been rebranded with a new label.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it...Hardly worth asking. It proves nothing. So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design? This thread provides a case study for the kind of closed mindedness that Stein describes in the trailer.

 

This thread was asking a simple question, the tangent it took, has to do with what and where you; Dog, and others have chosen to take it. As for the trailer, I see no descriptions of closed mindedness but more so allusions to it. This is why I started the thread. Another thing that I see from the trailer is an allusion to the fact that atheism and evolution are a threat to the christian church and it teachings. I/we as atheists could care less about what any of you believe as long as it is not thrust into our lives and government. I think that is why churches, synagogues and other places of worship were built. It is not however, why public schools and city halls were built.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dog,

 

In the realm of science there is no solid evidence of a supernatural being. So postulating that there is one immediately takes a discussion away from science. It is now some sort of theological discussion.

 

Scientists readily admit that there is no General Unifying Theory. There remain many unanswered questions. The causation of the universe as we can see and the genesis of life in it are chief among these.

 

But to say that there is no evidence that there is a natural cause for these is vastly overstating the creationist case to a foolish degree. Much research and many studies have been done both in biological and physics that points to a natural cause. Basic cell structures have been created in labs from inert matter. Physics can give a description leading back to the millisecond before our observable universe was created in the big bang.

 

Yes there may be a creator, but if so the creator has hidden its tracks to the degree that science cannot find any trace of it. Creationism isn't based on science any more than Helios pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot is.

 

Try watching the Discovery Science channel for some interesting cosmologists.

 

The universe apparently doesn't have enough matter to explain the motions of galaxies - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark matter".

 

The universe is expanding faster than it should - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark energy".

 

Quantum physics doesn't explain what we see. That's ok, we'll develop a "string" theory, with these "strings" working in over 9 different dimensions.

 

So you have matter you can't see. Forces you can't feel. All working in dimensions we can't comprehend. Doesn't that sound like a good description of god (or at least religion?). We've replaced priests with scientists, with their own dogmas. Don't question the dogma's they spout, or you'll be called an ignorant buffoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread was asking a simple question, the tangent it took, has to do with what and where you; Dog, and others have chosen to take it. As for the trailer, I see no descriptions of closed mindedness but more so allusions to it. This is why I started the thread. Another thing that I see from the trailer is an allusion to the fact that atheism and evolution are a threat to the christian church and it teachings. I/we as atheists could care less about what any of you believe as long as it is not thrust into our lives and government. I think that is why churches, synagogues and other places of worship were built. It is not however, why public schools and city halls were built.

Funny...I didn't see anything in the trailer about atheists, churches, synagogues or religion. I thought it was about the repression of one avenue of human inquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps people are 'closed minded' because ITS OBVIOUS BULLSHIT thats just been rebranded with a new label.

Another guy who knows the truth. People who know the truth are scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny...I didn't see anything in the trailer about atheists, churches, synagogues or religion. I thought it was about the repression of one avenue of human inquiry.

 

Again no repression - no reasonable person cares if you blather on about intelligent design in your church. Though we probably won't invite you over to watch the Superbowl....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny...I didn't see anything in the trailer about atheists, churches, synagogues or religion. I thought it was about the repression of one avenue of human inquiry.

Yes its about a totally unsupportable theory being repressed (or better defined as REJECTED) by the scientific community. Similar to the Pastafarians not being taken seriously by any religious people either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes its about a totally unsupportable theory being repressed (or better defined as REJECTED) by the scientific community. Similar to the Pastafarians not being taken seriously by any religious people either.

That’s the kind of thinking that got Galileo excommunicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s the kind of thinking that got Galileo excommunicated.

But Dog, I think the ID folks were considered by the scientific community and rejected due to lack of worthiness. Now Stein and your ilk are complaining that they can't play in scientific playground.

It isn't about repression. Its about rejection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Try watching the Discovery Science channel for some interesting cosmologists.

 

The universe apparently doesn't have enough matter to explain the motions of galaxies - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark matter".

 

The universe is expanding faster than it should - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark energy".

 

Quantum physics doesn't explain what we see. That's ok, we'll develop a "string" theory, with these "strings" working in over 9 different dimensions.

 

So you have matter you can't see. Forces you can't feel. All working in dimensions we can't comprehend. Doesn't that sound like a good description of god (or at least religion?). We've replaced priests with scientists, with their own dogmas. Don't question the dogma's they spout, or you'll be called an ignorant buffoon.

 

 

You contradict yourself here. You have scientists postulating new theories to fit the gathered data, yet call them dogmatic. You can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you have matter you can't see. Forces you can't feel. All working in dimensions we can't comprehend. Doesn't that sound like a good description of god (or at least religion?).

 

No, it sounds like a good reason to keep on searching with the best analytical tool we have as yet derived, to understand and comprehend those things we currently do not, rather than lump it all together and write it off as an unexplainable, unprovable, dogmatic belief that we must take on faith, called "god" (or at least religion).

 

We've replaced priests with scientists, with their own dogmas. Don't question the dogma's they spout, or you'll be called an ignorant buffoon.

You seem to be equivocating the fundamentals of religion with those of science. The two couldn't be more different in their respective basis.

 

Religion or the belief in the supernatural says, "There are things we don't understand, that are too great for us to understand, and that we cannot comprehend due to our limitations, therefore, we must take it on faith the supernatural exists and is the cause of these things that we do not understand." There is no room for questioning that which we do not understand in that environment, as you are directly questioning the supernatural, god, or whatever, aka heresy. (This is what got Galileo excommunicated.)

 

"Science", or better the scientific analysis of our universe says, "There are things we don't understand, YET. But there is nothing that given enough time and analysis, we cannot eventually come to understand because we live in a physical universe, governed by physical laws, and without evidence to suggest supernatural forces at work, there is no reason to assume that they exist. In order to understand these things, we must study them analytically, systematically, and precisely. We must make hypothesis about things we do not fully comprehend and test these hypothesis to see if they hold true. If they do not hold true to repeated analysis, we must reformulate the hypothesis, and further question those beliefs that led us to our original hypothesis." Something does not become a Theory until it has run the gammit of endless cycles of repeated analysis, scrutinized and analyzed to the tiniest detail via the peer review process. ID has not held up to this process. That's it. It's not a viable theory, that's all. There is no room in good science for dogma, it stunts the growth of knowledge, just as there is no room for teaching poorly formulated hypothesis that do not hold up to repeated analysis (ID). We do not teach that flat earth and geocentric universe theories

are still a viable alternative to a round earth, expanding universe of which we are sitting in some corner off in space somewhere, because the evidence for those theories does not hold up to scrutiny. We do not say that because these are not taught as viable alternatives that they are being suppressed.

 

The basic difference between science and religion is that religion claims to have all the answers (god), where as science makes no claim. "Science" makes claims only to evidence that supports hypothesis, theories, and laws, and is the open ended search for knowledge.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it sounds like a good reason to keep on searching with the best analytical tool we have as yet derived, to understand and comprehend those things we currently do not, rather than lump it all together and write it off as an unexplainable, unprovable, dogmatic belief that we must take on faith, called "god" (or at least religion).

In our scientific pursuit for an explanation for our existence should we dismiss the possibility of an intelligent designer? After all…to hold preconceptions is contrary to the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You contradict yourself here. You have scientists postulating new theories to fit the gathered data, yet call them dogmatic. You can't have it both ways.

 

You mean that all the comments from all the scientific inquisitors here don't come from the scientific dogma? If you are outside of the scientific mainstream (either direction), you get slammed. If you don't agree with global warming, quick check the offender's funding source or political backround. No one escapes the Spanish scientific inquisition. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
In our scientific pursuit for an explanation for our existence should we dismiss the possibility of an intelligent designer? After all…to hold preconceptions is contrary to the scientific method.

 

 

If you provide evidence to the peer review process that supports an intelligent designer, and it survives the scrutiny that any good science goes through, then we can talk about the possibility of an intelligent designer. But in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to support it as a viable theory, and it should most definitely not be taught in basic science classes.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean that all the comments from all the scientific inquisitors here don't come from the scientific dogma? If you are outside of the scientific mainstream (either direction), you get slammed. If you don't agree with global warming, quick check the offender's funding source or political backround. No one escapes the Spanish scientific inquisition. :lol:

 

Where do you get this stuff? Scientific inquisitors?

 

When there is a concerted effort by scientists to get elected to Church boards so they can change the way that religion is taught in churches we will talk about the scientific inquisition.

 

The debate on global warming is an entirely different issue. While it has a political overtone the basic debate is one of science. Looking at backgrounds of the researchers and where the funding comes from the studies is done by both sides and is appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In our scientific pursuit for an explanation for our existence should we dismiss the possibility of an intelligent designer? After all…to hold preconceptions is contrary to the scientific method.

 

Scientific pursuit follows the scientific method. We don't create a theory and then go about proving it with facts. We take all available facts and from that draw a conclusion. As of yet, I have not seen any fact that suggests a god might exist. Therefore, I have no conclusion, nor theory, nor even a hypothesis that he does.

 

You still fail to grasp logic and reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientific pursuit follows the scientific method. We don't create a theory and then go about proving it with facts. We take all available facts and from that draw a conclusion. As of yet, I have not seen any fact that suggests a god might exist. Therefore, I have no conclusion, nor theory, nor even a hypothesis that he does.

 

You still fail to grasp logic and reason.

 

And down goes Dog!!! Never saw it coming man that had to hurt!!! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Try watching the Discovery Science channel for some interesting cosmologists.

 

The universe apparently doesn't have enough matter to explain the motions of galaxies - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark matter".

 

The universe is expanding faster than it should - That's ok, we'll postulate "dark energy".

 

Quantum physics doesn't explain what we see. That's ok, we'll develop a "string" theory, with these "strings" working in over 9 different dimensions.

 

So you have matter you can't see. Forces you can't feel. All working in dimensions we can't comprehend. Doesn't that sound like a good description of god (or at least religion?). We've replaced priests with scientists, with their own dogmas. Don't question the dogma's they spout, or you'll be called an ignorant buffoon.

 

You seem to completely miss the point as well (intentionally or otherwise). Scientists don't create a theory then research facts to prove it. That's a debate team - or a politician. Scientists take facts, and from those, craft a hypothesis. Then they try to disprove it. If they cannot, it later may become a theory.

 

Fact - simple newtonian physics starts breaking down on a small scale. Therefore, they take the facts we know and created a theory that models it - quantum physics.

 

Fact - the way in which the universe acts does not follow our previously hypothesized laws. Therefore we'll create a new and hopefully better hypothesis that will fit better than our current model.

 

Irrational - we don't understand everything yet, so let's assign the cause to a god.

 

The sun still revolves around us, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientific pursuit follows the scientific method. We don't create a theory and then go about proving it with facts.

Actually Grrr...that is exactly what we do. If the facts corroborate the theory it can be considered a law. It is an evolving process that involves both imagination and verification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Grrr...that is exactly what we do. If the facts corroborate the theory it can be considered a law.

No, not really. If repeatable measurements confirm/prove a hypothesis, it is considered a theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not really. If repeatable measurements confirm/prove a hypothesis, it is considered a theory.

But all theories begin life in the imagination. Our greatest scientists are visionaries. Scientists constantly ask "what if". “What if” is a leap into the unknown unsupported by current knowledge. It is then tested scientifically.

 

But ask the question…“What if” there is a designer? And the narrow-minded thought police want to shut down that inquiry. Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But all theories begin life in the imagination. Our greatest scientists are visionaries. Scientists constantly ask "what if". “What if” is a leap into the unknown unsupported by current knowledge. It is then tested scientifically.

 

But ask the question…“What if” there is a designer? And the narrow-minded thought police want to shut down that inquiry. Why?

They aren't shutting down the inquiry, they simply have a high standard that ID doesn't achieve. Once the evidence supports ID and it can reach the high standards of scientific study, then I have no doubt it will be accepted as an alternative theory.

Until then, its just conjecture and superstition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But all theories begin life in the imagination. Our greatest scientists are visionaries. Scientists constantly ask "what if". “What if” is a leap into the unknown unsupported by current knowledge. It is then tested scientifically.

 

But ask the question…“What if” there is a designer? And the narrow-minded thought police want to shut down that inquiry. Why?

Facts and theories tend to meet each other half way in practice. New theories come into fashion when the old ones fail to explain enough facts. Someone has to have the imagination to propose something new, but the facts prompt the effort to find an explanation. However, aside from the occasional revolution in thought, theories get modified incrementally over time as people reinterpret and restate them with minor changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever...I don't understand how anything can be anything other than "natural".

There appear to be universal laws that govern how the universe works, we don't know all of them. Things that break those laws would not be "natural". For example, a being which can defy gravitational attraction without any means consistent with the laws, or create matter or energy where there previously was none, etc.

 

Now, it may be quite feasible given that we don't KNOW every law of the Universe we may be a might bit confused by something breaking the laws we think we know. For example something like telepathy...it may be an ENTIRELY reasonable concept if you have the technology, but we do not at this point understand it so it would appear "Supernatural".

 

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and other mythical cryptozoolical critters are "natural" in that they are supposedly unknown specimens of animals that fit within the known paradigms for life. Ghosts, angels, etc. all do NOT work withing the known paradigms we have for space/time and reality and therefore are "supernatural".

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

EDIT - P.S. it is entirely possible that there IS a superintelligent being that created us, though I think it improbable. However, such a being would STILL need to follow the laws of reality, time & space. Which is NOT what the gods of mythology and current religions do - such a being could exist, but would still be no more of a "God" in the supernatural sense than you are a "God" of the Ant Farm you had as a kid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Grrr...that is exactly what we do. If the facts corroborate the theory it can be considered a law. It is an evolving process that involves both imagination and verification.

You've got it backwards. Newton did not dream up "Gravity" and walk around looking for proof of it. He was hit in the noggin by an apple and said "WTF - why did THAT happen?". The resulting hypothesis was gravity.

 

Cuteness asside, most ideas/postulates/theories come from observed phenomena and the resulting attempts to explain them ("Why do I float in the tub, but this rock does not?") as opposed to the IDEA being created then the hunt for supporting evidence is conducted. The latter method is how religions tend to work...

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've got it backwards. Newton did not dream up "Gravity" and walk around looking for proof of it. He was hit in the noggin by an apple and said "WTF - why did THAT happen?". The resulting hypothesis was gravity.

 

Cuteness asside, most ideas/postulates/theories come from observed phenomena and the resulting attempts to explain them ("Why do I float in the tub, but this rock does not?") as opposed to the IDEA being created then the hunt for supporting evidence is conducted. The latter method is how religions tend to work...

Backwards...frontwards...It makes no difference. Every human accomplishment or insight involves imagining. Imagination cannot be separated from science. What fear motivates obstructing inquiry into the possibility of a designer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
There appear to be universal laws that govern how the universe works, we don't know all of them. Things that break those laws would not be "natural". For example, a being which can defy gravitational attraction without any means consistent with the laws, or create matter or energy where there previously was none, etc.

That's a pretty tautological definition of "natural" there, Sir. ;)

 

I also think the laws of physics apply to fairly restricted specific ranges of time and space. The incompetent port tacker who T-bones you is mostly empty space, but he sure doesn't feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty tautological definition of "natural" there, Sir. ;)

 

I also think the laws of physics apply to fairly restricted specific ranges of time and space. The incompetent port tacker who T-bones you is mostly empty space, but he sure doesn't feel that way.

 

How so? There are "laws" that govern how the universe work. Either something complies with them, or it does not.

 

The tautological bit is only tied to whether we know the laws or not. Currently, we do not - a being that DOES know most of the laws could very well appear god-like to us.

 

When I see something that does not appear to comply with the laws, I question whether we have the laws right or what are we missing here? Others flop on the ground and start babbling in tongues, or just call it "God". Differences in mindset.

 

There are laws that operate on macro and micro level...they behave consistently, however our observation of them may not appear consistent. In theory you COULD pass right through that port tacker, in actuality the probability is so low of all the atoms being lined up "just so" so as to be in effect impossible. A port tacker that routinely passes through you unmolested may know more physics than you, but I would still guess he's not "supernatural".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog,

 

You are missing the big picture. Teleology has a place at the academic table. Go into a philosophy or religion department and you will hear it being debated in earnest. It has proponents and detractors. Papers and books have been written that are reviewed and responded to not ridiculed.

 

The problem is that it isn't science. Ben Stein should know better.

 

If you cannot get the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, it is likely beyond you to get the difference between scientific inquiry and philosophical-theological inquiry. But there is a difference.

 

-CS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backwards...frontwards...It makes no difference. Every human accomplishment or insight involves imagining. Imagination cannot be separated from science. What fear motivates obstructing inquiry into the possibility of a designer?

 

I think that you have it back wards. If there is a god, I and I believe that most atheists have no fear of this. It is the people that believe in a god (mostly christians in my experience) that fear the non-believers because we are making sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backwards...frontwards...It makes no difference. Every human accomplishment or insight involves imagining. Imagination cannot be separated from science. What fear motivates obstructing inquiry into the possibility of a designer?

Who's obstructing inquiry? By not allowing those who want to believe in supernatural premise take a seat at the scientific table doesn't obstruct inquiry. It simply doesn't support it. We have standards. Go create your own curriculum, museums and universities to study ID. Oh wait, you already have. Nobody is stopping you from investigating and promoting ID, you just can't do it under the guise of being scientific. Its a religious study.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backwards...frontwards...It makes no difference. Every human accomplishment or insight involves imagining. Imagination cannot be separated from science. What fear motivates obstructing inquiry into the possibility of a designer?

 

None you deliberately stupid twit. Inquiring into such a possibility is perfectly reasonable in a church. In a lab not so much.

 

In the same way scientist are not looking for evidence to support the idea of a flying sphagetti monster....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dog,

 

You are missing the big picture. Teleology has a place at the academic table. Go into a philosophy or religion department and you will hear it being debated in earnest. It has proponents and detractors. Papers and books have been written that are reviewed and responded to not ridiculed.

 

The problem is that it isn't science. Ben Stein should know better.

 

If you cannot get the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, it is likely beyond you to get the difference between scientific inquiry and philosophical-theological inquiry. But there is a difference.

 

-CS

So you believe it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation into the existance of a designer. I think it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation into the existance of a designer. I think it is.

I think if during the process of scientific investigation, if evidence of a supernatural force was presented, it would be appropriate to further investigate that supernatural phenomena.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if during the process of scientific investigation, if evidence of a supernatural force was presented, it would be appropriate to further investigate that supernatural phenomena.

Stein contends that scientists who say that they do see such evidence are being ostracized. Watch the clip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see the same response to a Theology Professor seriously proposing to his colleagues that there's this new religion that proposes a giant pasta creature created the universe and pirates and stuff. Do you think he would remain in the department because he wanted to use university resources to investigate and study this theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stein's piece and movie are at the best biased and at the worst propaganda.

 

The scientists are being ostracized for practicing shoddy science, not for their ideas.

There's a compelling arguement. Off with their heads!

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a compelling arguement. Off with their heads!

No, but perhaps a transfer from the science department to the theology department. That way they can continue their research unimpeded and without discrimination. When they've got it all figured out, I'm sure the science department will grant them a hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation into the existance of a designer. I think it is.

 

Science is best equipped to deal with things that belong to and are bound by the natural world. Any designer by definition must be outside of that which is created.

 

Every time something is unknown or unexplainable by current knowledge scientists could either say I can figure this out or declare it the unknowable work of god. Progress is made when the former approach is taken.

 

Scientists are not being asked to not believe in God. Scientists are not even being asked to ignore having a sense of awe in the complexity of what they are discovering.

 

What they are being asked is that while they speaking as scientists - that the behave like scientists.

 

Using scientific inquiry to look for god is a little like trying to find out how much something weighs using only a stopwatch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...