Flame Wars forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| patjackson (#) 3/24/2003 15:31:53 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Anyone have a view on "intelligent design"?Message: I read this article recently which caught my intrest, I hope it catches yours. The Hand of God. The Shortcomings of Science are no Basis for a Spiritual Faith. A lot of people are naive about creationists. They regard them as small-town Bible literalists who believe Earth is just a few thousand years old and that dinosaur bones in museums were deposited during Noah's flood. Old-style creationists of this sort certainly exist, but in recent years their influence has been eclipsed by a more sophisticated breed who preach not Genesis but "intelligent design". This is the notion that organisms are too complicated and too improbably well adapted to their various functions to have formed by chancy Darwinian evolution alone. Somwhere, somehow, some sort of designing force-God perhaps- intervened to give natural selection a hand. Many fans od intelligent design concede that the Earth is billions of years old and that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Some are not even motivated by religion. Rather, they are frustrated by what they see as intractable problems with Darwism. THis brand of creationism is neither obviously foolish nor obviously scientifically illiterate. And though it is hardly new, its political star is rising. In Ohio, educaton officials are considering whether intelligent design should join evolution on the state's high school curriculum. Is this acceptable puralism, or a retreat from rationality? When officials from Kansas voted evolution off their curriculum three years ago, it was clearly a crude version of the latter. Adding intelligent design is a subtler proposition and its validity will depend on what is taught. Some people, including a tiny minority of scientists, clearly have trouble believing complicated life forms can emerge from natural selection. To deny such doubters exist amounts to censorship. Yet anyone who claims intelligent design is a scientific theory is taking liberties with the words "theory" and "scientific". For one thing, intelligent design is mainly about picking holes in Darwinism. It doesn't lead to positive assertions of its own that can be reliably tested by experiment. And is evolution really beset with intractable problems? It is true that scientists cannot yet offer us a blow-by-blow account of how random molecular changes turned bacteria into fish and fish into people. But there is an awful lot that evolution can explain and scientific progress isn't about to peter out. Take the problem of complexity and mutations. Most organisms are so complicated their developement depends on thousands of genes turning on at the right time. One-off random mutations are far more likely to disrupt such intricate genetic programs than to change them in a potentially beneficial wat, and this raises valid questions about how species conjure up the genetic variation that is the raw material of natural selection. A possible solution to this problem is a newly discovered protien which seems able to protect organisms from the damaging effects of one-off genetic mutations. Whether such proteins are the grease in the wheels of evolution is too early to say. But what they do illustrate, quite beautifully, is how unforseen discoveries open up new possibilities. By contrast, fans of intelligent design seem to assume that what is mystreious today will always be so, and that we are better off invoking a supernatural explanation. This is defeatist, and no better for religion than science. Basing a spiritual faith on the inadequacies of present-day science leaves believers with nothing more than a God of the Gaps, and even if those gaps are never eradicated, science will continue to close old ones and open new ones. Follow this path and you habe a nomadic designer armed with suspiciously shifting powers of influence. The sensible, if boring, remedy is to stick with the idea that science and religion are quite different realms of understanding, and it is wrong to seek to explain or refute on with the other. Not all scientists will agree. Some physicists will continue to give succour to the God of Gaps by invoking phrases like "the face of God" when they discover something seemingly fundamental to the universe or encounter a phenomena their theories cannot explain. And atheist scientists will continue to cite evolution as evidence that there is no God. In doing so they fuel the idea that we face a simple choice between anti-God Darwinism and pro-God intelligent design. This plays into the hands of the new creationist. But the choice is false and scientists should say so. |
| drcorbett (#) 3/24/2003 15:41:24 [ report this post ] | Theory & Scientific Message: Darwinism also misuses this. Dinosaur bones very well could have been deposited in Noah's flood. Age? Well, gee, it's not like it's been beyond God to fool people before [I think] and show things cryptically. Besides... how bloody well long IS a day to God? Is it a set number, like 1000000 years? Does it change, depending on what mood, if there is such a thing, He is in? The choice is false? What a nice bias we have here. Typically, this article puts into your head certain negative stereotypes. Honestly, I think it's too biased to really consider. With all the holes in Darwinism -- well, if it were treated as harshly by Athiests as the Bible, it sure wouldn't be believed in by them. |
| patjackson (#) 3/24/2003 15:46:10 [ report this post ] | When Message: in your opinion was the Noah flood? Bearing in mind the isotopic dating of dinosaur bones it seems unlikely to me that the two were related. Also it seems unlikely that the population of the current world could've spread from just two of every animal which leads me to very much doubt the whole Noah story. |
| nobody (#) 3/24/2003 16:06:00 [ report this post ] | Message: Lets just for one moment assume that the Noah story was true. What did the lions, tigers, cheetah's etc eat for the first few generations after the flood? It could not of been meat because they would of killed off several different animal types. So if they were vegatarians why did they turn into meat eaters? nobody |
| patjackson (#) 3/24/2003 16:09:08 [ report this post ] | THat was what I was thinking Message: Having only two of every animal would lead to mass extinction almost immeditaely. Loose one of any partner of herbivore and the species is doomed. Then the predators are doomed, it is simply inviable. Also what the hell happened to all the aquatic life, since when to fish of ducks and geese care about a flood anyhow? Hey Nobody how ya been keeping. How come you're not on MSN? |
| nobody (#) 3/24/2003 16:22:16 [ report this post ] | Message: Hi Pat I am fine thanx. I havn't got the pc to myself as much now as what I used to. My wife uses it more and more each day and I also have to let the kids use it as well, because thier pc is not working at the moment. Back to normal in a few weeks (hopefully). nobody |
| drcorbett (#) 3/24/2003 22:11:21 [ report this post ] | Isotopic aging... Message: *sigh* Like I said, this could all be one really complex test of faith by God. Maybe He used evolution and seven days as a metaphor. Can we possible even know? What the heck is the point on trying to prove or disprove the world's largest religion on the interpretation of the first chapter of the most important book the world ever had!?! |
| drgandalf (#) 3/24/2003 22:52:55 [ report this post ] | DrCorbett Message: Your statement, "this could all be one really complex test of faith by God." is a tautology, and hence, of no value. Your statement, "Maybe He (God) used evolution and seven days as a metaphor." The author(s) of Genesis used these as metaphors, not God. Even as metaphors, these do not disprove or invalidate the Hebrew or Christian faiths. The problem with fundamentalism is the fear that scientific proof WILL invalidate the faith. There are many Theo-C scientists trying to disprove scientific evidence for the sole purpose of forcing contemporary knowledge into the straight jacket of literal interpretation of the Bible. What an utter waste of talent and time. Creationism, the belief that the earth came into existence at 9 am, October 4, 4004 BC simply is primitive thinking, of no practical value, other than to amuse. |
| drgandalf (#) 3/24/2003 23:06:53 [ report this post ] | The Clear Intellectual Struggle Message: is between randomness (Darwinism) and interdependency (Intelligent Design). (1)Does a species only react genetically to a hostile environment through adaptation, or do species change genetically without the impetus of environmental change? (2)Does a species genetically change randomly in an attempt to adapt, or does it change according to its ability to survive the changed environment? By sensing the external changes, the species automatically reply with a survivable genetic change. Finally, is there enough time to genetically change, before the original species dies out? Intelligent design does NOT affirm the existence of God. Quite the opposite. It presumes the LACK of intervention, since the species and the environment are inextricably interwoven in a grand cosmic interdependency. Both randomness and interdependency leave little room for free will at the macro-species level. The question, then, becomes at what point does a group of individuals of a species start to exhibit this deterministic characteristic? |
| pawntificator (#) 3/25/2003 00:15:14 [ report this post ] | Creationism Message: I strongly believe in Creation. Indeed, how can one deny it? Even if you disregard for the moment the creation of life, and say that I'm not talking about the creation of the earth to 10am in 4004BC. I'm talking about the whole cosmos, the very birth of the universe. There is no way to explain how it could be out there, stretching out for eternity in all directions, infinitely with no beginning or end to time. There must have been some initial catalyst that caused all of this to happen. Enter God, stage left... |
| supergodbomber (#) 3/25/2003 00:32:08 [ report this post ] | Message: And exit god stage right once we finally develop the ability to think for ourselves. |
| supergodbomber (#) 3/25/2003 00:53:44 [ report this post ] | Message: I think both evolution and creation exist because each has been useful, and I dont think they necessarily negate each other. Creation, and religion in general, has been useful to stop people flipping out when they start trying to figure out why all of this stuff is happening. Its a great comfort to turn to something like that when the logical part of your brain starts whispering to you "how can it be any different when you die from the time before you were born??". The trouble is it tends to force us to seperate ourselves from nature. Evolution has been very useful in bringing us to ground on what we actually are, and what our relationship is with all the other living things that have been evolving with us, like bacteria that evolved resistance to our drugs. Evolution has helped me realise that I am part of nature. And I like thee thought of all of us being created by intelligent design, but I cant see why evolution is not capable of facilitating intelligent design. The problem is that, like scientists picking holes in religion, most people are trying to pick holes in Darwins book which is well over a hundred years old by now. In my work I do get a lot of use out of the theory of evolution, and I personally believe that especially in the more complex organisms evolution is not so random. We are about to realise the product of that, being the first organisms to become fully aware of how we came to be- and potentially control it. This certainly strikes me as not random... But, as I said, they dont negate. As a scientist, evolution is a beautiful and very strong explanation of how life developed and came to be the way it is. And also as a scientist, Im not totally convinced that life spontaneously sprang to life from a mixture of complex organic chemicals- what the hell are chemicals anyway? As far as what actually kicked off life on this rock, well a divine will is as good an explanation as any. Enter god, or whatever the hell it was, stage left... |
| hamlet (#) 3/25/2003 01:38:23 [ report this post ] | Message: I actually use the bible as an idea for morals, generally (the right edition can make you a good half a foot taller at the dinner table...) The bible to me is a set of stories that was used 2000 years ago to provide order to the chaotic society. Some teaching may need to be updated to fit into todays world, but most remain sound. A question I've always had is what about Australia? Those kangaroos certainly must have been good swimmers, or could hold their breathe a long time back in those days... Another problem I have had is that the bible doesn't have a specific answer for the ancient people's. What happened to them they didn't know about this God, and I don't like the idea that they just got *****ed, like so many ardent followers tell me. And Finally, the Jesus question. What is so special about him? Are we not also the children of God? It seems God has favourites. The story about the holy ghost impregnating Mary is a bit far fetched for me, just like Noah's boat. I've done some thinking, what if Jesus was just a normal guy like you and me, but he had this idea, this novel idea: love. The idea is so novel that it is still not practiced completely today. I must concede that I am an ardent darwinist, but after some reflection I realized that there had to be some divine hand that gave us the elements to make quarks and whatever quarks are made of. After all something can not come from nothing. |
| pawntificator (#) 3/25/2003 01:49:18 [ report this post ] | how to REALLY hurt your brain Message: Try to imagine where God came from. It just doesn't make sense to the limited human mind. |
| supergodbomber (#) 3/25/2003 01:51:54 [ report this post ] | Message: God isnt a being witrh an address and phone number so theres not much point in thinking about it. Man created god in his own image |
| shallowthought (#) 3/25/2003 05:42:55 [ report this post ] | australian swimmers Message: are always winning golf at the olympics - now we realise why!! i had always been a traditional lapsed catholic athiest with a fervent rejection of all things unscientific (i used to post here a year or so ago in this vein). but i have been reading joseph campbell and carl jung lately, as well as karen armstrong's excellent book on fundamentalism, and now have a grudging respect for the powerful reasons behind the misguided beliefs that "christians" hold. i still don't beleive in creationism or catastrophic floods in any way shape or form, but the power of the myth (not as in false story, but as in cultural force) these stories represents is unstoppable. the way they talk to our sense of communal self is unstoppable. here on gk are incredibly intelligent reasonable people who argue to overcome conventional socratic reason and logic over and over again. why? because it difficult for humans, all humans, you and me, to look into the depths of the abyss, which is a world without a reason. as philosopher after philosopher have stated, that way lies despair. for some at least. those with imagination perhaps. scientifically trained people such as myself tend to mythologise our human reasoning powers, and find meaning and communal strength in the continual explication of the universe's mechanics, because we need myth. we need reason too. and i am not saying we have made a god of reason, but rather that reason like god, has a mythic potential. reason and god are both myths, in the sense that we draw the courage to go on living from them. we developed both reason and myth in our path becoming humans, and i now feel that it is wrong to deny either of these basic human characteristics. i would like to avoid the naturalistic fallacy and say that because we have them they are good, but that they are essential, one way or the other. the problems is how to apply the myth you subscribe to the reality of living. because reason and myth are different - they have different goals, they talk to different parts of the brain - these gk arguments will never be resolved. |
| shallowthought (#) 3/25/2003 05:47:08 [ report this post ] | and Message: they talk to different human needs. the need to know 'how' and the need to know 'why'. recognize please that i said a world without *a* reason... in paragraph 3. |
| fooey (#) 3/25/2003 06:02:19 [ report this post ] | Interesting debate. Message: I'm not aware of any commonly accepted thinking that evolution is disproved by the complexity of species. In fact, it supports it. The theory of evolution gives a logical reason why certain characteristics develop in certain species. The complexity and diversity of nature actually is a lot more damaging for the theory of creationalism, speicies upon speicies make you ask - why would 'god' design it like this, and the answer, he wouldn't. Of course darwin's theories of evolution aren't a perfect model of the world, but compared to religions (with the exception of Bhuddism) it's leaps and bounds ahead. |
| patjackson (#) 3/25/2003 16:39:21 [ report this post ] | drcorbett Message: A complex test of faith is only a possibility if you really want to believe. It is impossible to disprove christianity per-say but it impossible to prove it also. Reading "the worlds most important book" (in my view fourth most behind my diary, hitch hikers guide to teh galaxy and of course the karma sutra. Just Kidding.) makes me very sceptical about christianity as a religion, it seems to me more a philosophy, with some good ideas and some very strange beliefes. Is christianity the biggest, or is it just the richest and loudest? Also you didn't make any reference to our biological questions about how breeding worked after the ark landed with making everything go extinct. |
| drcorbett (#) 3/25/2003 16:46:00 [ report this post ] | Yes, Message: Christianity is the biggest religion with two billion members. #2 is Islam. #3 is Hindu, then Buddhism. I believe Judaism comes in fifth. |
| patjackson (#) 3/25/2003 16:58:45 [ report this post ] | Thanks, Message: Always good to be informed. Imagine two billion hoodwinked, you wouldn't have thought it possible. |
| nobody (#) 3/26/2003 01:49:12 [ report this post ] | drcorbett Message: The fact that christianity has more followers is a deception. Everyone in my street is a christian. However thats only by name. As in if they fill in a form they would tick the christian box. However they proberly dont own a bible between them. They dont go to church or act as the church would expect them too. The same cannot be said for the other religons you mention. So what is a christian? A person who calls themself a christian? Or someone who follows the doctrine of the church religously? Put it another way. I have a small collection of Budda's does that make me a Buddist? I think you will find that only a small percentage of the christians, in the polls that you are getting your data from. Are what some would call proper christians. So in effect you would also proberly find that christianity is not the most followed religon as you claim. nobody |
| pawntificator (#) 3/26/2003 07:08:26 [ report this post ] | It would indeed be difficult Message: to come to an actual and accurate result of the world religion membership numbers. It would be madness to try. Even finding out what ONE billion people believed would take forever. By the time you got to the end, the first guy would have changed his mind! Or he would be dead, and he REALLY would have changed his mind. I am Christian, I own 2 Bibles, and I do my best to obey what I believe to be the will of God. I even read the Bibles. Although some parts of the Old Testament are really slow going. What I find interesting is that Christianity barely exists at all anymore in the areas where it originated. The Jewish people live there now, and that area is surrounded by Islamic countries. Christianity up and moved to Europe and the New World. Go figure. Needless to say, shallowthought is right. We will never resolve these issues here on gameknot or anywhere else. Everyone will decide for themselves what they need to believe. I am a HUGE fan of Joseph Campbell, and I recommend his works to everyone who wonders about these issues. He speaks from a universal, historical, and human perspective at the same time, incorporating religion(all of them), myth, and psychology to explain why we are this way. It's wonderful stuff. Really. Although it may make you doubt your beliefs if you aren't careful and faithful. But I'm still Catholic! ;) PS I don't see how life could be this way unless there was some sort of "intelligence" behind the "design." |
| drgandalf (#) 3/26/2003 09:23:28 [ report this post ] | I am starting to believe Message: in Darwinian randomness as opposed to intelligent design, since what else would explain the born-again. |
| pawntificator (#) 3/26/2003 09:31:20 [ report this post ] | That was a cheap shot Message: and you know it! But hey, what can ya do? DrG, you ever read Joseph Campbell? |
| drgandalf (#) 3/26/2003 16:06:11 [ report this post ] | Pawntificator Message: I have seen the "Power of Myth" series of video tapes and I have read half of the book. |
Post a reply to this message: |