I'm Actually Wondering if I'm not Going to Feel all that Inspired Until After the Elections. I've got a Rather Busy Weekend Coming Up with a Lot on my Plate. There are Things I could Post on, such as, well right now, I'm Thinking about some of what BB-Idaho and I have been Talking about in Relation to Science and Religion. That Post Relating to Determinism and Free Choice sort of remains in the Back of my Head too. Anybody have any Preferences? Any body have any Comments in Advance Relating to either of these Topics?
Well, it Looks Like Evolution vs. Intelligent Design is the Topic that was Chosen and that Follows Below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I always feel the need to clarify when I get into a discussion about evolution exactly what it is people are disagreeing with. Natural selection IS easily provable and glaringly obvious all around us. Speciation on the other hand is a different topic. Despite my love for palaeontology (invertebrate) and the fact that orthodox palaeontology considers evolution a given, I have issues with speciation the way it's always been classically presented.
So far I've not seen any reason why intelligent design could not be the driver behind 'evolution' (though I still don't understand completely how the whole thing can mobilize speciation). I've studied Gould, Eldridge, punctuated equilibrium and all the rest of evolutionary theory I can get my hands on and I'm STILL not getting the whole random mutation resulting in species thing. There could be something I'm missing in the argument.
On the other hand I've conclusively illustrated the whole thing with intelligent design using the example of a pound cake (in a long post I wrote ages ago).
Some of the difficulty I think has to do with terms; everything gets painted black and white and the creationists get all pissy over anything that sounds like it operates independently, while the evolutionists get dogmatic about wanting to eliminate the need for a higher power altogether.
Natural selection IS provable, though. I'm not sure how many creationists make the distinction.
Interesting. I got a bite on the Intelligent Design vs Evolution Idea and this is another one that I feel can be Quite Repetitious since BB and I have Discussed it before. I Keep Leaving the Link to Our Earlier Discussion and am Probably going to Eventually add it to my List of "Favorite Ramblings" to the Right.
I Know that you do not Like being Referred, though, Satyavati, to Earlier Writings, so I'll see what I can say Right Now.
First of all, People get Confused about the distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism is Religious and it is Based on Faith in what the Bible Says. Intelligent Design, though, is Scientific and all it states is that there is Evidence that there was Intelligent Design Involved in the Development of the World.
An Intelligent Design Advocate is not Ever going to say "Because the Bible Says so". Instead they Take a Scientific Approach and Look for Evidence to Support a Different Hypothesis.
The Hypothesis of Evolution Theory is that the World Evolved by Chance and there was no Creator Involved. The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design is that there was some Form of Intelligence Involved in the Process.
I Agree that Natural Selection has been Shown within Certain Species, yet Never has it been Shown from One Species to Another. In Order to Prove Evolution as the Means of how the World Came About, however, Speciation must also be Proved and it has not been. Instead it is just as Scientifically Feasible that Each Species was a New Creation, with no Connection to the One just before it.
Evolution or Natural Selection within a Single Species does not in any way Prove Evolution as a Full Explanation of how the World Came into Being, so there is Really no Reason to Argue it in Order to Preserve the Credibility of the Intelligent Design Hypothesis.
In Order to Remain Scientific, I don't Use the Word "Creationist", but only "Intelligent Design"
And by the Way, I am not at all Opposed to the Leaving of Links on my Blog to Earlier Posts, so Feel Free to do so, if you happen to Know how to Find the Page that you Mentioned.
Intelligent Design, though, is Scientific and all it states is that there is Evidence that there was Intelligent Design Involved in the Development of the World.
No. Intelligent design simply states that "an" intelligent source guided the process without pinning it on a specific being or religion. Scientists lump ID in with creationism and consider it the same thing because it takes away the random chance part., so no, ID isn't considered 'scientific'.
I am of course a nonChristian and follow a completely different set of scriptures (although we believe that there is only one God whether you'd like to call him Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah or Krishna) so I'm looking to the Srimad Bhagavatam's explanation of creation and the cosmos versus the Bible's. Intelligent design works with either religious viewpoint.
No, natural selection doesn't explain speciation. It does explain evolution on a species/genus basis and possibly even a phyletic basis.
The easiest examples I can come up with for natural selection are things as simple as animal breeding and also the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Natural selection could possibly be considered a form of evolution if you take it in that individual species are evolving due to the natural selection process, but again, this doesn't account for speciation.
And I reposted my earlier post about dessert and evolution.
Hi Satyavati,
No Where did I say that Intelligent Design "Pins it on a specific being or religion." You are Right in your Statement that it doesn't.
Evolutionists do not Consider ID "Scientific", yet their Opinion is Biased. There are ID SCIENTISTS that Insist that ID is Scientific, so at the Very Least, Insisting that it is not is Debatable.
Since Natural Selection doesn't Explain Speciation, it also does not Explain Evolution "In the Context of the Origin of the World". Darwinism Includes Speciation and thus, Darwinism can not be Proved.
I'm Familiar with the Proof of Evolution within Species and Have Never been Interested in Arguing with it because it doesn't Prove Darwinism, nor does it Prove an Evolutionary Explanation of how Life Became what it now is.
The Example of Natural Selection within Species that I'm Aware of is one Relating to the Beaks of Finches.
My Favorite Example of Evidence Against Speciation is one Relating to Sugar Beets. If I have Time I'll Explain that, but right now I'm Out of Time.
I Look Forward to Reading your Post.
You Know, Evolutionists not Only think that Intelligent Design is not Scientific, but they also Continually Lump it with Creationism which is not Scientific. In Contrast to that, Intelligent Design SCIENTISTS Deliberately Separate themselves from Creationists because they do not want to be Associated with that which is not Scientific.
Also, I don't know if you Ever Saw that Documentary, "Expelled". In it, they Explained how Intelligent Design SCIENTISTS are Discriminated against by the Rest of the Scientific Community and how People have Actually Lost their Jobs just because they Wrote Papers on and Expressed their Opinions about Intelligent Design.
In my Mind, there is Absolutely no Doubt that the Opposition to it is Highly Biased.
Lista,
Anyone can call themselves a 'scientist'. There are 'creation scientists'. This being said, neither creationism nor ID are actually 'scientific' because you cannot, ever, conclusively and empirically prove the existence of a guiding, intelligent force behind evolution. Therefore, you can CALL it science all you like, but it's not.
You did mention the Bible. The Bible is not my scripture; I don't consider it infallible, I don't take it literally and nothing it says guides what I do. That doesn't mean I don't support ID; I do. It's just that the Bible doesn't enter into my thought process of it.
Sorry for the Delay, I had a Busy Weekend.
You also can not Conclusively and Empirically Prove Speciation, so by your Own Standards, this is not Scientific Either. So you can call Speciation Science all you like, but by your Standards it is not.
I may have Mentioned the Bible, Satyati, but only to Point Out that Intelligent Design Advocates will never say that anything is so, just because the Bible Says so, and this is Why it is not an Idea Based on Religion. Faith is not what they Look too to Support their Conclusions and they use Scientific Observation as their Guide, not Scripture.
If I was to Quote Scripture, which I Might, it will only be to Illustrate a Parallel between those Scriptures and Science. I will not Use them for Proof of anything while Talking about Intelligent Design, because that is not their Approach, so neither should it be mine.
Intellgent design is regarded by orthodox science to be religiously based, as it posits a Higher Power, which can be and is generally interpreted as a "God".
Generally, ID is used by creationists as a way to bring in a more religiously based conception of the evolutionary process.
The inclusion of ID in school science classes (or legal attempt to include such) in several states is also seen as an attempt to bring religious thought into an area (the public school system) that has absolutely no business bringing in anything that even smells like a religious bent.
That being said, I accept ID on its own terms without a Christian viewpoint. The Christian viewpoint, incidentally, is in no way incompatible with ID, as it posits a Higher Intelligence, which would, in the Christian tradition, correspond with God. This viewpoint can also be compatible with my nonChristian religious beliefs. The issue of cosmology and creation, while in many ways substantially differ from the Christian viewpoint, is outlined in painstaking, specific detail in one of our scriptures, the Srimad Bhagavatam. ID is compatible with this.
So I'm not sure how you can assert that a theory that presents the creation of all things as directed by a Higher Power is nonreligious, as it's a central belief of virtually every theistic religion there is.
"In my Mind, there is Absolutely no Doubt that the Opposition to it is Highly Biased." 99.9% of
scientists are skeptical
of ID. One of the reasons is that scientists
stick to science, not politics.
BB,
There is Absolutely no Doubt in my Mind that that Statistic is Biased and after Reading the Wikipedia Link that you Left, I realize that the Wikipedia is Biased to. There is so much Misinformation out there relating to this that it is appalling.
For now I'm just going to deal with what the Wikipedia says. I don't know about the Wedge Strategy, but I do Know about Intelligent Design.
The Goal has never been to "Defeat Scientific Materialism", nor to Replace it with something Based on Christian and Theistic Convictions. Intelligent Design Scientists Know very well that the Reality of God can not not be "Affirmed" Scientifically any more than Speciation can, so that is not their Goal. Neither can it be Proved and thus, Neither are Scientific based on Satyavati's Standards of what is Scientific.
Their goal has also never been to Shape Public Policy to Reflect Conservative Christian Values. Yes, they would Like the Two THEORIES to be Taught Side by Side, but the Way the Wikipedia Describes it, it sounds like the Goal is to Do Away with the Opposing Theory and that is not the Goal at all. At least not the goal of Intelligent Design, nor of the Discovery Institute.
Intelligent Design Scientists are not Trying to "Redefine Science", nor are they Dogmatically Opposed to it.
Like I said, I do not know about the "Wedge Strategy", but to Connect them and all these Bogus Goals with the Discovery Institute just Sounds to me like a Really Big Lie, but I'm going to have to do some Research in Order to Prove it.
Would you Guys Mind Please Waiting until After the Election before Challenging the Heck Out of me. I do not Currently have the Time to do the Necessary Research in Order to make an Intelligent Defense against what I believe to be False Accusations against the Discovery Institute.
Satyavati,
I'll Address your Comment a Little Later.
Sorry Lista, if you think
Wikipedia is biased with their 50 references relating to the matter.
Conservatives prefer
Conservipedia , even though it has only a single reference. You may follow the link and find
the wedge document there as well. You will find all the statements you attempted to refute in your comment above and
yes there is a 'really big lie' involved. It lies in the source wedge document, written by the gentleman who started the Discovery Institute, a lawyer, not a biologist.
As I mentioned previous somewhere, I have had correspondence with these
people, mostly that ID
is negative..eg. 'too complex, must have been designed', and asking for
any scientific support or evidence to support their
'theory'. I guess the upshot is Julius Caesar's
oberservation.."Men will believe what they want to"
so you are free to follow your own logic to your own conclusion...as am I.
The Very Presence of a "Conservatpedia" gives Credence to my Hunch that the Wikipidea is Biased.
The Point is that Darwinism and Speciation is a Theory as well, yet at Least Intelligent Design Scientists are Willing to Admit it.
I am Very Eager to do this Research, BB. It's too bad that I lack the time for it at the Moment. All I want to say for now is that the "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" and the "Discovery Institute" are Two Different Organizations and for the Wikipedia to Link "the Wedge Strategy" with "the Discovery Institute", while making no Mention of "the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" in their Introductory Definition is Misleading.
I'm also Willing to Bet that the Definition of "Materialism" in the "Conservapedia" includes a Whole Philosophy that goes beyond just Science, which makes this an Issue of Culture, not Science, and this is Separate from the Scientific Focus of the "Discovery Institute".
In Order to Discredit Intelligent Design and the "Discovery Institute", the Opponents are Continually Linking them with "Creationists" and other Organizations that are less Scientific, such as the "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture".
Let me set you straight, just trying to help,
"All I want to say for now is that the "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" and the "Discovery Institute" are Two Different Organizations"
No, The Center for R,S&C
is a division of
the Discovery Institute.
See? They admit it even if you don't
If you utilize Conservipedia and Fox 'News' you will be
arguing opinion..not fact.
As far as "In Order to Discredit Intelligent Design and the "Discovery Institute", the Opponents"
are doing exactly what the Institute and ID are trying to do to biological theory. ..and they are very successful, for more
people doubt evolution in the US than anywhere in the civilized world. If scientists do not fight back against a non-scientific 'theory', ID
will have its say and we
will be teaching ID, rather than biology.
Kids, this is too complex, so it must have been designed...end of course.
Except 'we' won't be teaching it, because we
in good concience simply cannot teach that which we find false. We are concerned, of course, that
a return to the science of the Dark Ages seems to finds credibility in the 21st century. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....we have been around on this before and I would like to see your side, but whatever merits
it is not science.
Let's quote:
From Wiki:
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][4]—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[n 2][n 3]
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[5][n 4][6] Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[1] In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.[7] The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[n 5][n 6][8][9] and indeed is pseudoscience.[n 7][10][n 8]
Intelligent design originated in response to the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[5] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[11] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[12][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[13]
From Conservapedia:
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like Christianity. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.
I should also mention that the problem creationists have with ID is that ID refuses to specify that the CHRISTIAN God is the 'intelligent designer'.
They feel that to not specify leaves it open, and that nonChristians might 'use' ID to accept that Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster or Krishna created the world.
Once again, the closeminded Christian viewpoint insists that things be their way or the highway.
And THAT is the issue creationists have with Intelligent Design.
BB,
How many Times do I have to say it? Darwinism is not Proven Science either. Intelligent Design Theory Admits that it's a Theory, Darwin Evolutionists do not. Darwin Evolution is Based on Faith, just as much as the Other.
Satyavati,
Please Remember that Darwinism Includes Speciation, so we are not just Talking about Natural Selection within Species.
I haven't even Taken the Time to Read Everything that you have Submitted. That's the Reason why I use Comment Moderation, because I'm Slow and this Slows the Conversation Down a Little, though I do end Up Posting most Everything that's Submitted.
Perhaps I will Respond to the Second of your Comments. The Very Fact that Creationists do not Like that Intelligent Design Scientists Refuse to Specify that the Christian God is the Designer is Proof that this Group is more Biased and Not Scientific and the Fact that Intelligent Design Scientists will not Give in to this Notion is Proof that they are more Scientific than the Creationists and this is Why they Desire to Remain Separate and to not be Lumped together with the Non-Scientific Creationists.
Those who are Trying to Discredit ID are the ones who Lump them with Creationists.
This Post is not about Close Minded Creationists. It is about Intelligent Design.
After This, I don't Think I'm going to Post Much more until Tomorrow Night, or Wednesday Morning, mostly just because I'm Busy, so Please don't Feel Ignored if you Submit Something and it does not Show up for awhile.
I'll be happy to read any of your insights girl!:)
Thanks.
But BB going back to an earlier comment you made that 99% of scientists are skeptical of ID Albert Einstein himself said "God does not play dice with the universe."
Thanks Z,
It is Nice to have another Voice on this Post. I've been Meaning to get Back to it. In a Way, the Conversation has moved over to Satyavati's Blog, yet I'll be Posting again on the Subject on this Blog. Here's the Conversation on Satyavati's Blog.
Time for me to Read Origin of Species Again
This Discussion is Officially Closed until After Christmas. I have not Deleted anything. Your Comments will simply be Stored in Moderation until After Christmas. My Excuse. I'm just Busy.
One Sentence Comments May Pass through at the Discretion of the Blog Author. Only One Comment Per Person Please.
Toad Said:
"Exactly which part of evolution requires faith??"
Evolution Requires Faith because of all the Statistical Improbabilities.
Post a Comment