Intelligent Design, on SBS TV tonight

[iceman]

SBS TV is featuring a program about "Intelligent Design" tonight, at 8:30pm on "Dateline".

Here's the press release:



Might be worth watching for those interested in discussing it here.

[ThunderChild]

Hi Ice,

Thanks for the heads-up - I will probably give it a go if I'm not busy.
[EDIT : DOH! I'll be playing squash!]

But I must admit that I did raise an eyebrow when I saw you had posted this.
The guidelines ask us to avoid topics like politics and religion, and while I don't personally mind discussing such things, you know how heated they can become (hence the inclusion of that rule in the guidelines). I think this falls very clearly into that arena (especially since the quoted blurb made it look like it will bash anyone with that point of view - rightly or wrongly).

Anyway, I know I'm new here, so I defer to your judgement.

Cheers,
Chris

[janoskiss]

If ID is science, then it does not breach the forum guidelines. If it's religion, then it does. Much of the debate around ID is about how to categorise it. I'll have a look at the doco. Dateline is usually very good.

[iceman]

Hi Chris.

Your statement is justified, given the forum guidelines. However we've had a (long) thread on intelligent design a few months ago, and I let the thread continue, with a warning to keep it on topic, respect people's opinions and don't get personal. And the same applies here.

So while I prefer to avoid topics about politics and religion, because as you say, they can easily become heated, I'm erring on the side of optimism that the members that choose to discuss it will be mature and level headed and avoid making statements with the intention of creating an argument.

[ThunderChild]

Well put Ice - that sounds fine.
I've been around around online forums (and newsgroups before that and BBS's before that ... :ashamed: ) long enough to see the potential for mischief here.
But as you say, from what I've seen, the people here seem pretty sensible about things - so fair enough. Especially if there's a history of being capable of discussing things like this nicely (which I wasn't aware of).


As for whether it's science or religion - true, that's what the very argument is about - so (IMHO) could only escape being categorised as a religious discussion by technicality. To all intents purposes it is a discussion which can not be had without reference to religion (directly or indirectly), so the spirit of the guidelines would hold if we felt they needed to be kept.

[jjjnettie]

Thanks for the reminder Mike.
Looking forward to the discussion afterwards.

[Starkler]

This is interesting in the context of a statement within the SBS summary.



That statement alone IMO gives a preview of from what viewpoint SBS will be covering this topic. For the record I am not a religious person, but I am all for balanced and objective reporting.

[janoskiss]

If the program is going to be biased, there might be be another program next week favouring the other side. Dateline has done that sort of thing before.

[circumpolar]

This topic has two interesting questions.

1. Is ID solely religion (based on faith), science (based on observation, study and experimentation) or a hybrid of the two.

2. Should it be taught in the education system.

Although ID attempts to study and explore the roots of physicality, it is still built on a foundation of religion, which is based on faith. This is the opposite of science. The two systems seem to contadict each other by definition and this is a major concern for people.

Teaching this subject in schools should be treated like scripture. A choice is made wether a child can attend class or not. It should definitely not substitute time allocated for regular class studies!!

[ThunderChild]

I have to agree with your sentiments Starkler. While I obviously have not seen the program yet, it was that quote in particular which caught my eye too and caused me to question whether it could stir up antagonism in the fourm. It smacked of being "the other side of a turf war".

I think it is incumbent on anyone who accuses someone with a different POV to be "pushing their own agenda" not to be seen doing the same themselves.

Anyway, I hope the documentary is treated completely dispassionately and without being adversarial in nature. Otherwise the writers do themselves an injustice in my mind.

[janoskiss]

Oops! I didn't realise it's on at the same time as Ab-Fab. Not watching ID doco. :P

[stinky]

You were better off watching Ab-Fab. Has lots more to do with reality than Intelligent Design. Show me somebody who is not smitten by religion that will take it seriously! No theory backed up by tests and empirical data - of course this is just more religious self justifiactaion.

Keep education and science in the schools and for those that want religion - go to church.

Back to Ab-Fab! :)

[mickoking]

I am a religious person (Buddhist) and I 100% believe in evolution. The problem is IMHO that some who study religion or practice it take it too dogmatically and literally and eventually some self appointed moralist will stand on their pulpits and claim that they know the 'truth'. Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up for popular consumption and trust me quite a few people believe in it.

Yes, Back to Ab-Fab ;)

[Argonavis]

Stinky. I agree wholly. It is some time since I have seen a really good science doco. That recent one about a mission to the planets was more entertainment than science. Carl Sagan's Cosmos seems so long ago, would really like to see something based on his book "Demon Haunted World" and how science lights a candle in the dark. It is very sad when religious propaganda is dressed up as science. I consider part of the problem to be that the Darwinian-Wallace theory of biological evolution is difficult to understand. Darwin himself was a creationist, until he considered the evidence.

[janoskiss]

I watched the 2nd half of this short (~35 min) doco (because abfab did not do it for me tonight).

I'm in no mood for any more debates on this topic. Let me just say that my take on ID is that if you can't see the forest for the trees that is your problem. Take this as you like, because that is as unbiased as I get. :P

[mickoking]

I agree. The problem is that to some people it is more plausable that living things were created by someone than try to comprehend the complexities of evolution. This is a problem science must fix because there are some people in very high places that holds sway to the religious right.

[Argonavis]

well, not too many Buddhists have started any wars recently......

John Dobson believes that the Universe is a Veil hiding a more fundamantal reality. I can accept this, we have a facinating and astounding Universe governed by physical laws, which may (or may not) be just a veil. This accepts the physical reality of the Univese that we inhabit and perceive. But when some of the more fundamentalist members of the abrahamic religions try to tear down my veil, and put their own in its place...not happy.

Interestingly, I understand that the Islamic world does not have a problem with evolution.

..what makes astronomy so facinating and astounding is the contemplation of those vast cold dark spaces, overwhelmingly indifferent, the universe doesn't care what we believe...

[mickoking]

The stars don't judge either :)

[Argonavis]

Humans are rather good at that. The best TV series that explained organic evolution was late Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man". Many years ago. Could use a re-make, updated with DNA evidence.

The final scene of this series had Jacob Bronowski (who was an historian of science) bending down and picking up the mud and ashes of his fellow jews at Auschwitz, saying "this is where dogma leads us".

[Volans]

Dahling Sweety Dahling...oops sorry, wrong show..

Through personal experience over the years, I have come to realise that the bulk (not all) of Americans are incredibly insular to the point of being lamentably ignorant of anything outside their nation's borders.

An American once asked my mother what part of England she was from. My mother replied that she was Australian. "Is that in the south of England?" was the American's query.

Whilst I was a tour guide in Far North Qld. I was telling a young American boy about Tasmanian Devils. His mother admonished me for telling fibs - everyone knows that the Tasmanian Devil is just a cartoon character!

Last year when I was in the US for 2 weeks, I watched a fair bit of CNN. You were told about one of two things - Hurricane Katrina's aftermath or the interview with a man who wanted to become the Cheif High Court Judge (whatever the highest judge's title is). I heard NO overseas news at all.

It is these things and others which lead me to my original statement. I could not honestly care less about how insular a group of people are, however, this group just happens to be a world super power. Scary enough but what really annoyed me about last night's ID debate was something George Negus said right at the begining. About 100 Australian schools are teaching this drivel (ok..."drivel" is my word). I would dearly love to hear more about this Australian aspect.

Thankfully ID and astronomy don't mix but it does make one wonder about the broader implications of science teachings.

And I could tell you some scary stories from working in a planetarium!

Peter.

[avandonk]

Don't you think we are the Universe contemplating itself? It would be tragic if we were the only planet with sentient life. When I say sentient life it is not only human as other species have understanding we don't have. I find it difficult to believe that our planet is the only place with 'life'. The Universe is so vast that it's size is incomprehensible to any puny human mind.
Science allows us to to crawl out of the primordial slime of ignorance and have a better understanding of how the Universe works. So far it has been the best way to understand reality.
Superstition was the method to 'explain' how things worked in the past. All things not understood were put into the realm of mythical beings that somehow controlled everything.

The main failing of ID as a scientific theory is that it puts all the unknowns back into the lap of a mythical designer. Another mythical being based on superstition.
Religion is not about the physical, it is about our inner life. You cannot measure love,hate,loyalty,wisdom,art,contem plation etc on a balance. Religion has a valid place as belief system so we all get on better with each other. We as a group set rules about living so we are all better off. It is when unscrupulous men misuse power for their own advantage that it all goes off the rails.

You only have to look through history to see the hypocracy and downright evil perpetrated by some humans in the name of their imaginary friend. The major reason they could get away with it was because the populace were kept or were ignorant.

This 'modern' version of creationism (ID) is exactly that, simple answers to complex questions to not scare the populace or keep them unquestioning. An uninformed populace is far more compliant than an educated one. Hence the purges (killing) of the intelligentsia in various regimes even in recent times.

There are only two 'sins' in my belief system, hypocracy and ignorance. ID fills both bills.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. But this is the best model of the Universe I have at the moment with my limited abilities. I wish I could be as certain as some others who have 'all' the answers.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Yes Bert, I too believe that to be a possibilty - we are just a manifestation of the universe's desire to be loved and appreciated - a mirror possibly - it is lonely?, if there was no sentient beings who would contemplate the universe? I dont think the universe is just dumb dirt and gas, but its not a ancient bearded male on a cloud either.
I watched the show (thanks Mike) - I found it interesting that they didnt look at the australian angle of this debate - and that it came so long after the fact? shows how powerful they are?, even sbs treads carefully!
I agree with the scientist on the show when he said, that there is something very dark and orwellian about it all.
I have read nearly all the BAUT forum threads on this subject and they just ripped this BS to pieces, they have said it all IMO.

[janoskiss]

Bert, You take the prize in my book for most intelligently designed post in this thread! :thumbsup:
Everyone, If you think you understand, you need to go away and think about it some more. :P

[Argonavis]

Si?

Don't know about you Bert, but I perceive myself as separate from the rest of the physical universe. Unless you are a Jungian, I assume that you would, too.

In fact, I find the universe surprisingly indifferent to me. If I stand in front of a speeding train, no matter how much I will it, I know it will run me over. I don't think the universe was created just for my contemplation, or is some other sense merges me into some kind of collective consciousness. Humans seem to be just like any other organism on this planet - busy exploiting their environment to allow them to survive and reproduce. I can't see any unequivocal evidence of a masterplan or master designer.

From what I can see we are all the remnants and wreckage from a rather large explosive event....some time ago.

I am going to go away now before the moderators come along and beat me up for being off topic.

[[1ponders]]

There is a novel you guys might enjoy reading if you can find it. It's called "The Starmaker" by Olaf Stapleton. You'll find very similar philosophies bound up in a great short novel.

[avandonk]

Jung and all the others were all as correct as they were all wrong! You cannot understand by mere simple contemplation. All that matters is more experiments more results and more experiments .....

There was a famous Indian (the subcontinent ie India) who taught that all life was an illusion. Apon being seen running from a hungry tiger and asked why he ran when the tiger was only an illusion, his answer was he had something else he had just thought of so he had to attend to it.

These arguements become circular once you analyse them.

The fact is we have to face reality every day. Try telling a mother in the third world that her children dying of starvation is only an illusion.

Argonavis you are correct the Universe has no mind. I am afraid at the moment we are it. Sad is it not.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Thanks Paul! upon reading back I thought I was sounding like a sci-fi or star trek series episode plot/premise there ;) out damn spock!
Argonavis, Bert didnt say the universe was created for our contemplation at all, he said we (and any other sentient beings out there) may possibly be the result of the universe wanting to/or contemplating itself.

Ok someone define energy for me - isnt that really what the universe is at its broken down level? wether inert at rest or a whizzingly fast photon :)

[[1ponders]]

This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"







ps if you do watch it, make sure you watch the credits. It introduces all the players in the discussion.

[stinky]

The ID's are indeed sad - they try to create an explanation for everything based on the supernatural. Accept the supernatural and everything falls into place.

Personally I find that an incredibly arrogant act - to define a supernatural 'governor'. They've got as much chance of explaining the universe as a cockroach has of understanding mankind.

[[1ponders]]

While we may not accept the ID point of view stinky, everyone is still entitled to their own point of view.

Please keep your discussion less aggressive. This particular religious discussion has only been accepted as long as it remains on a "friendly" basis.

Thanks

[mickoking]

[quote='[1ponders]']This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"

I believe some religion and science converges. Buddhism has an interesting concept called emptiness who's conclusions are strikingly similar to quantum physics. The Dalai lama has got the right idea. He says one must not be dogmatic about things, if science dissproves something that the holy scriptures say you must accept what science says.

[avandonk]

I think it was Einstein that said 'anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics and is not afraid, should be very afraid'.
Our real world was really built upon fleeting particles that were really indeterminate waves that behaved most strangely, and yet reality was there? This was a problem he had.
I had an almost religious experience when I studied this. I very quickly realized the Universe is a strange place indeed. Nothing is real yet it is! Too many conundrums.
No I will not stand in front of a train. Quantum effects do not work at our level of reality. I am not an electron!

Bert

[[1ponders]]

It sounds like you would enjoy this DVD Bert. I viewed it with an open mind and left the same way, but it did give some interesting insights.

[avandonk]

[quote=mickoking]

Science and Religion should never be in conflict. They cover different areas.
Where there is overlap, the better informed on both sides largely agree. We don't know but that is interesting.

Bert

[stinky]

Thanks - and I offered my point of view - but perhaps IMO should have been in the first sentence.

I will explain in a less concise manner - the IDers like to explain there is a perfect explanation for evolution when one accepts the involvement of a great designer. Perhaps cockroaches say grace when we drop crumbs - he he :)

But on a serious note I see no justification in discussing the scientific merits of ID when it is based on superstition.

[gaa_ian]

I consider myself a Christian .... BUT I do not accept ID.
I have met an spoken with some of the Key people promoting this Psudo Science ID, they scare me :scared:
I for one am very happy we survived the Dark ages & the inquesitions.
Pure science does not (IMHO) have all the answers for a happy and fulfilling life, but that is no reason to dress Faith up as Science.
Fortunatley moderate chuches EG: Uniting Church, are rejecting the teaching of this revisionism !

[avandonk]

Science is not about refuting the existance of God. This is a problem these people have(the Religious Right in USA). What God is, is beyond science. I for one am a rabid agnostic at best and an atheist at worst. But I will defend your beliefs and the right to your beliefs. Just as you should respect mine. If I am denigrated for not believing in God, it is just as bad if you were denigrated by anyone else for being a believer.

Bert

[shredder]

A few years back, back in my Uni day I studies ID as part of a course. Not actually teaching ID, but more why were they trying to teach ID (in the US it started out with Evolution vs Creationism). And what it really came down to was Christian Fundamentalist Religious groups felt that they were loosing the battle to teach fundamentalist Christian Beliefs to children, once they entered school they were taught that everything started with the anonymous "Big Bang" and not the "Word of God" so to speak (varies slightly depending on religion, but you get the idea). So to counter this they decided to create ID, based on Creationism, and get a few so called scientists to back it up (same ones who said Smoking is safe, and Asbestos, and Nuclear Power, Global Warming, etc etc, seems to be a lot of them around if you have the money). There was no scientific principal behind it, but they figured "Evolution" is a theory and that gets taught as Science, so why cant we get on the same boat. And so it started.

I didn't see the show, or what the scientists are now saying about it, (and I am Christian for those who are interested, and quite religious), but I wouldn't put any of my children into a class teaching ID as science. There is a hidden agenda with it, and like all hiden agendas a nasty one at that. There was no merit to it when I studied it before (back then it was Evolution vs Creationism, with creationism backed up supposedly by ID) and I can't see why it would change now. There are better ways to incorporate your God into your life, and the creation of the Universe (or alternate Universes, depending on what you believe) than forcing this kind of thing on our Children.

Michael

[mickoking]

Sadly I think fundamentalist religion is on the rise. It is this fundamentlist dogma that corrupts the essence of the particular faith in question. Sadly the spread of concept's like ID is not helped by a poor understanding of science amongst the general population. I once worked with a lady who had studied chemistry at University, she believed that the stars shone because they reflected the light of the Sun :confuse2: I also know people here and now who believe in ID and they are otherwise quite intelligent people. Don't get me wrong, people are free to believe in anything they want. But if you are alarmed by concepts like ID and it's acceptance amongst the general community I would question 'what are the science community and educators doing about it'?

[Volans]

As an astronomy educator, I am doing my best to foster an interest in astronomy in the school kids that come through the planetarium but there is a problem. Apathy. Not in the children but in the teachers and it is not just apathy towards astronomy but it can be seen in broader contexts.

The biologist on the Dateline ID segment (the quitely spoken chap with exceptionally cool "mad professor" wild hair) said that science is hard to understand and it is far easier to comprehend a "God did it" attitude. I'll go along with that and I think that it is this type of, dumbing down/go with the easy option, that has led to the apathy that I am seeing.

I will go up to a teacher and ask if there is anything they would like me to concentrate on during their school show. The equipment we have at the planetarium is sophisticated and can graphically explain odd astronomical concepts quite well. Nine and a half times out of ten I will get the following reply: "Oh, whatever you do will be fine!" (usually followed by an inane and vacuous giggle).

Have any of you ever read a science article in the paper and picked up on a really bad mistake? A mistake that should not have been made if the journo had bothered to do some basic research? I have, and each time I do, it makes me wonder about all the other articles in the paper. Apply this to the primary school teachers. If the "yeah whatever" attitude applies to astronomy then does it apply to other subjects?

So as an educator what can I do? Bypass the teachers for the hour or so that the kids are in the planetarium and try to share my enthusiasm for astronomy.

Just to set the record straight, there are some teachers who do try and you can tell they have succeeded. When an eight year old asks you where Mariner 2 went you know his teacher has been doing a good job!

Peter.

[Nic]

Huh? What's that? It sounds like you're saying that ID actually agrees with evolution, so long as a designer was there to kickstart it. I don't think so.

For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?

Sorry? No one?

Put your hand up if you saw the formation of our galaxy, solar system and earth.

What's that? still none?

Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.

I thought so.

ID, just like evolution, is a historical science. The difference is what you choose to base your paradigm of beliefs on. Both have the same evidence to work with, they just use different presuppositions to interpret it.

Rather than beginning with the idea that life evolved accidentally from molecules to man, ID starts off that a designer created life. From this point, life was able to "evolve" through natural selection, using only the genetic information already available. But this is more DEvolution than evolution!

In experimental science we can see this works, such as in selective breeding. However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!

So now tell me how evolution of molecules to man is not superstitious??? To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious.

Please keep in mind that both evolution and intelligent design are historical sciences. It doesn't matter what you believe about the past, so long as you agree with experimental science.

Be excellent to each other,
Nic

[fringe_dweller]

I'm sorry Nic - ID is not a science - it is a pseudoscience, like astrology - it is based on wishful thinking, not evidence. So you are saying that the earth is only 6 -10 000 yr old? You believe in DNA but not carbon dating?

[Nic]

By that logic I can also say that evolution is a pseudoscience, just as it is based on wishful thinking. If there was no one around to witness it, how can you say it is anything more?

[janoskiss]

But you can witness it, when your antibiotics stop working, for example, just one of many.

[Nic]

Bacteria only develop immunity to antibiotics through natural selection. That is all that are not immune die and leave those that are immune to reproduce resulting in a higher number of immune bacteria.

[fringe_dweller]

And by that logic Nic, where you around to see Noah's ark and the great flood?
Oh hang on thats right, these same group of people responsible for ID found the wreckage of the wooden ark on mt Arafat - sorry! thats it, then its all irrefutably true! sheeesh
when I wake up fully I am going to quote some BAUT forum threads - then your 'science' is in trouble :-)
But good on you, at least you have the courage to stick up for your convictions - I respect that - A LOT.
Your the first one from the other side of the equation to have a go - RESPECT!

[Nic]

And Respect is what it's about.

While you're finding this killer evidence, be sure to let me know how mammals like dolphins and whales ended up back in the water.

God bless you.

[fringe_dweller]

Now your making me not want to disrespect your beliefs by going any further, dang, this is tough! now that I like you :)
but I will say that not ALL mutations are bad, and also that I cant see how anyone wants to be descended from flatworms - that doesnt come under wishful thinking?

[slice of heaven]

It might save me a few $$$ on science text books if they introduce ID into schools..... should only need one ;)

[janoskiss]

Well, to go from bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics to the evolution of the diversity of life we see today from primordial slime is a HUGE extrapolation that most scientists worth their salt (including myself) could not take seriously. But, of course, there is more compelling evidence for evolution on longer timescales (up to millions of years).

But as far as going from inanimate hydrogen, carbon, oxygen etc created through nuclear fusion in stars, to the most primitive form of life on Earth, we have not a clue at this time! One can say a "higher power" did it, but to my mind that is the same as saying something like "this is too hard, my head hurts". I am happy to acknowledge I do not know what is going on, but still know enough to survive and grow as a human being.

... I could go on for ever about these things. Whatever you think the world is/was/will-be in space & time, may be a very useful approximation from where you are standing, but nothing more. Your (and my) world view is ultimately flawed in every respect. An understanding of true reality cannot come from finite rational thinking even if there are up to 100 billion neurons on your side. I am comfortable acknowledging my essential inherent ignorance.

[stinky]

Nic......"mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!"

Is that so?!!!!

Nic....."To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious."

I believe next week I will have several breakfasts that I have not seen. Hardly a religious experience.

Do you know any non-Christians who agree with ID and refute the science of our modern era?

[Nic]

Fringe_dweller,

Cheers mate. I find that I get along well with people I don't get along with;)

Stinky,

1) That's right. Except for in the case of spider man.

2) I'd imagine you've had many breakfasts before, am I right? And do you know what that means??? That means that you are dealing with operational science. That which you can observe happening. How many times have you seen fish evolve into philosophers?

I should also point out that you are assuming that you will live to eat those breakfasts. Unfortunately, the future is unknown.

3) I don't think I understand. If they agreed with ID then they wouldn't refute operational science. Because if ID disagreed with operational science, it would be discredited.

[Nic]

Janoskiss,

That's been one of my points. We simply don't know what happened because we weren't there to witness it. The evolution theory is just someone's best guess (educated guess, I should say) at what happened.

I just happen to refute that theory. It doesn't affect how science works today, so what does it matter?

All the best,
Nic

[janoskiss]

No problems with that Nic. Only if you go that extra step and say "... and therefore God must have done it" that I would have a problem with. Just because we do not understand does not mean we need to invoke some higher "creature" whose very supposed existence poses more questions than it answers.

[Nic]

Fair enough, Janoskiss. The only time you'll hear me saying "and therefore God must have done it" is when the Bible specifically says so. eg. Creation.

But when it comes to rocket science, relativity or microbiology, you'll be hard pressed to find me researching from the Bible.

be excellent to each other,
Nic

[stinky]

Since i have never seen Plato should I assume he didn't exist? But if I do accept the evidence that he did exist I can also accept that he evolved from a fish !

You are actually. in this case, correct. Fish evolved into Philosophers.

[avandonk]

I am going to be very tedious here.

To question one
For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?
Answer : The evidence is irrefutable that it occurred. Anyone can measure it now with the right equipment. The microwave background and expansion of the Universe as measured even by Hubble. These can be tested now!

Equivalent question: Who among you has seen (fill in your God here).
Answer : Some barely attributal writings dating to many years after the events. These cannot be tested.

Question two: Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.

Answer: These days it is routine to manufacture DNA and RNA and Proteins in simple machines of any chosen complexity. It has also been shown that substrates of minerals are conducive to the spontaneous production of these same molecules given even the simplest of precursor molecules that are produced by conditions on early Earth.
This can be tested.

On this there is no record of even a faint idea how how life worked at a molecular level.

Statement: However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!

Answer: Misrepresentation of mutation. Most mutations can possibly be disadvantagious, but the advantagious mutations will be passed on and spread throughout the population of the relevant organism.See Influenza for one.

Conclusion: All the things that Science tells us can be tested, here and now and into the future.

Superstition can never be tested as it does not meet the requirements for a rational world view. It is based on hearsay and wishful thinking.

As for evolution being a historical science like Intelligent design, this is a very poor logical connection. Both talk to us about the past. Only one is open to testable scrutiny. The other is assertions with no basis in reality.

Why do I even bother?
Because enlightenment is all we have as human beings!
Bert

[stinky]

Enjoyed that - clear and to the point. On ya' Bert

[janoskiss]

The only question that remains then is why you would believe what the Bible specifically says.

I was raised on the Bible and bought it all almost into adulthood, even if it got me a lot of ridicule from my peers. For those who have not gone through it, it is unimaginably hard to take a step back and attempt to be objective and re-examine the world-view you've been raised under and where all your friends and family fit in. But in the end, my feeble enquiring mind had to acknowledge the severe shortcomings of any mainstream belief system. It is better to acknowledge that you do not know than to "pretend" that you do.

[janoskiss]

IMHO :ashamed: (it is getting difficult to edit messages with the new site setup...)

[shredder]

I think this is getting seriously off topic here, and not a science debate but a religious one (and therefore should be pulled).

I also think that the comparison between Evolution and ID are rather pointless (in terms of justification of ID as a science). Evolution has alreay been accepted as a scientific theory by the science community, and general population at large. The real question is what is ID, I believe it has no scientific basis and as I said previously was really started to push a religious belief, it can neither be measured, proven or disproven, it is a belief and therefor not a science, and this stands regardless of what occurs in the Evolution theory (proven or disproven).

Anyway I do believe this is rather pointless and the thread should be closed.

[stinky]

Your points are valid shredder - however if you dislike the thread it is probably easier just to ignore it than read it.

[avandonk]

The really sad thing is, in this day and age we have to go over these 'OLD' arguements. This insidious creeping of fundamentalist ideas into real science leaves me cold. We have to face the reality of ignorant people pushing their agenda into areas that were sancrosanct.

By all means shut down the thread, but also stop ignorant people from peddling their misinformed view of their reality.

They are very sad lost people who believe in the most preposterous ideas.

Bert

[Nic]

Stinky, you are applying inconsistant logic. There were many who witnessed Plato's existence first hand. There are none who first hand witnessed fish evolve to philosophers.

Bert, this irrefutible evidence you speak of all depends on how you interpret it.

At best, all the big bang can do is yield a cloud of gas. How did stars form? How about galaxies? Super clusters?

"Equivalent question: Who among you has seen (fill in your God here)."

Numerous times direct speech with God is recorded in the Bible.
Many witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those "many" years since 30AD hardly compare with the billions that evolution suggests.
This Human record is far more substantial than any record kept of evolution. Oh wait, that's right, no one was around to see it happen.

"These days it is routine to manufacture DNA and RNA and Proteins in simple machines of any chosen complexity."

Notice how you said it is routine to MANUFACTURE DNA and RNA. Clearly they do not manufacture themselves. You might even say it takes one to design them.
As for organic chemicals forming naturally, sure that has been shown to work. But they won't spontaneously come to life. It's like putting all the parts of a watch in a bag, giving it a shake and expecting it to come out perfectly assembled.

"Most mutations can possibly be disadvantagious, but the advantagious mutations will be passed on and spread throughout the population of the relevant organism.See Influenza for one."

It is true that mutations theoretically can be advantageous, but can you see it happening now? OK, so influenza mutates every season. This still works with ID as your paradigm! But where are the new species? Where is the increase in complexity?

"All the things that Science tells us can be tested, here and now and into the future."
This is only true of operational science! Have you successfully created life from a few particles? Because we cannot test/witness/verify the evolution of particles to people, we cannot with certainty say it actually happened. Therefore it is a historical science.

I sincerely hope you find enlightenment, Bert.

Nic

[Nic]

Objective is subjective when it comes to this sort of thing. I pretend nothing.
This quote may give you some insight into why I'd rather believe Creation than a cosmological accident.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists' and astronomers' as well as anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should I believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."

C.S. Lewis

[stinky]

Nic - there you go again, using logic in isolated situations. No one has ever seen someone who witnessed Plato - I'm sure you could keep this up. IF you really do want to use logic then let the discussion continue. IT is not logical to say "it is so, because it is writen in the Bible". Biut it IS logical to say that science is able to provide evidence that fish evolved into Philosophers.

[avandonk]

The usual nebulous reply without one testable fact.
My son how much Molecular Biology have you studied before you dare to make statements that are so broad and so unequivocal?

Bert

[janoskiss]

Discussion people! Not who's better who's smarter. Please!

I see the world my way and I'm happy to tell you about it but it is just my flawed perspective on things. If you see it another way that is fine, expected in fact.

[stinky]

janoskiss - A key point in this thread is exactly what you have outlined - the way individuals see the world / universe - and what should be taught in schools (that was what the program was essentially about).

We have science on one hand - knowledge of the natural world. And a belief system on the other. If we are going to teach kids in school anything at all surely it should be facts that can tested and verified. For belief systems it would be a good idea to keep that out of the classroom (given that there are so many to choose from) and presented in a church / club / place of contemplation etc. that people can attend out of choice.

Regardless of ones belief system I do think it important that children are educated in science. It is a dangerous road to mix science and religion. My two Roberts worth....

[avandonk]

This is not about who is smarter. He is flogging the fundamentalist doctrine in the guise of a 'scientific arguement'. If he has knowledge about real science then let him show it. All I have seen so far is drivel and bluster and the classic 'you can't nail me because I am a moving target'.

If he has any insights my question is fair. My best guess its the usual drivel.

Do you really want another dark age?

Bert

[janoskiss]

Bert, No I do not want another dark age. But your reply to Nic's last post sounded somewhat degrading and was probably not helpful. We are all discussing very deep-seated convictions (in all of us) that will not budge without a lot of thoughtful consideration and discussion. For most of us that probably means looking back on what was said (if anything valuable was said) years from now. So I put forth my point of view and let others do the same.

[[1ponders]]

Gentlemen, the discussion is starting to sail a bit close to the "being locked" wind. Would everyone please take a step back, take a deep breath and slowly sigh it out.

An open and honest discussion is welcome, but no matter what you feel about someones elses belief, please respect them whether you agree with them or not. If respect isn't given the discussion can quickly turn into personal attacks (an attack against a persons belief system is an attack against that person).

As I said, its sailing close to the "being locked" wind at them moment.

[janoskiss]

Sorry, Nic, I was meaning to reply to your post but got distracted. I made no mention of any "accidents" earlier. The evolution/science=accident (vs god/creation/whatever) assumption is a typical tool employed in the evangelical Christian literature with considerable success. "Accidents" are not part of any scientific world view. None I subscribe to anyway.

[avandonk]

I will not resile from my previous statements. If someone happens to make statements I disagree with. So be it. If on the other hand I make equally disagreeing statements, it is down to me.

It is sad that in this modern age that people cannot see reason above superstition. If I have failed it is here. If you think it is about winning it is not!
I am now going to have a cold beer and a lie down, and in the morning it will all be alright!
No it's not, the same twits will be awake!



Bert.

[mickoking]

yes it would be nice if every one involved would cut the agro. I am a passionate Astronomer and I am also passionate about my faith. I also enjoy threads like this. The problem with the world today is people don't respect anyone else view point or opinion, lets not replicate that attitude in this forum please.

[fringe_dweller]

I dont understand you Bert, in the previous thread we lamented the lack of ID supporters that would come forward, into the lions den so to speak, and present their side of the arguement.
This was the most puzzling part of the issue to me. That there was supposedly all these people with this belief and yet we couldnt find one to put their hand up/defend and discuss this in depth, and get a better understanding of the issue. Now Nic has bravely done that, you want to shoot him down with childish name calling. sorry mate, but you seem to have made your mind up already? lets hear him out

[stinky]

Good point Mick - as there has already been a call to 'terminate' this thread. How CAN one have respect for others if they have no opportunity to voice their point of view? It's fine to hear from the humble and also those that use strong statements to deliver deeply held points of view. The fact that the staements / points of view give us all the opportunity to understand better.

And back to the thread - ID is not science, or science based (IMHO) - and should not be presented in schools.

[avandonk]

I am sorry if that is the perception on your part of my involvement in this debait (sic). I will no longer argue against people that peddle crap. They can waffle on as much as they like. I tried at first to be subtle, but that had no impact. So I did what they do, undermine the basis of thier beliefs. Sorry if I have offended anyone.

Bert

[avandonk]

By the way folks these trolls read from a blurb. They have potential answers to all the usual questions. It is only when you confront them with hard questions that they fall apart. I defy him to give me any references where he studied anything anywhere. I rest my case and if I am am wrong which I very much doubt. Sorry if I seem harsh but he was talking absolute drivel passing as comment or even quasi fact.

Bert

[iceman]

The discussion was good for a while but it's got personal so now's the time to close it.