Fighting the fight

[xelasnave]

The intelligent design scientist can give us a better understanding of mass extinctions one would think... the species that become extinct presumably represent designs that have found wanting after trials and scrapted .. thats only a laymans view but it would be nice to get the scientific explanation of why certain designs are left run and others are scrapted... mmm now this is where the two sciences can nearly meet one would think.. scraping a design, alterring a design must come close to an evolutionary approach... see all can live on it seems.
... neither science probably realise they have such in common.
alex

[Rodstar (Rod)]

Thanks Glenn for starting what has been a rather revealing discussion.

It seems to me that the debate on this thread is not ultimately about faith in creationism or ID, but rather, fundamentalism.

The classic features of fundamentalism, as I would define them, are:

1. A rigid uncompromising belief system.
2. A tendency to characterise the world in black and white terms.
3. A tendency to divide people into two camps, "us" and "them".
3. Arrogance and contempt for the belief and ideas for those who don't agree, adopting a language of exclusion where others are not allowed into the group unless they subscribe to mandatory beliefs.
4. A determination to convert "them" into becoming "us", often spoken of by adopting the language of war or a battle.
5. Holding such a belief system will often result in actual conflict, whether verbal or physical.

There is reference in the thread to the right-wing fundamentalism of the Bush administration. That administration is well-known for its very black-and-white analysis of world affairs, and in many ways may well reflect the definition given above.

Drawing upon the four features of fundamentalism I cited above, as example I note:

1. This thread is commenced by a call to war, "fighting the fight" and the thread starter describes interations with creationists in his early attempts as "battles". One of the battles he describes between 3 evolutionists and 200 creationists. He is now a strong believer in "doing a bit of 'back burning' in the school system (or in the community as a whole)". He recommends "targetting" teachers with a science background. He asks whether we are, "serious about attacking the "ID'ers". He declares that "It's time to act".

2. The thread-starter groups all creationists together with some very unfortunate perjoratives. Creationists "have no background in science or the scientific method" and have had their beliefs, "drilled into them". They are compared with "natives putting pins into a voodoo doll", are "cashed up", "live by the line 'spread the word'", use every resource available - even being sneaky". They are "well meaning but misguided people".

3. Another author says (referring to creationists), "one side wants to hide behind an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific argument with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths" and yearns for "an even playing field". The same author also speaks of the impact of the creationist movement as being "about power via the votes of the uninformed."

4. Another author decries creationism as unscientific. "if you are a scientist being whatever school you must already know the rules of the game....I will entertain "the science" if it entertains the rules of science." After asserting that creationism does not play by the rules of science, the author evicts creationists. "Observe the dress rules and you can come in....otherwise no entry".

I have the greatest empathy and agreement the most with those who speak of the importance of respect and tolerance. By attacking those of a creationist belief set in the way they have been attacked on this thread, the self-styled scientists are actually committing the same offence of which they accuse the "creationists". I would describe this attitude as scientific fundamentalism. I think there no place for scientific fundamentalism, in the same way that there is no place for religious fundamentalism.

It is simply inaccurate to assert that all creationists are unscientific (just as much in fact as it is to assume that all evolutionists are well-researched scientists!). There is a host of scientists in academic institutions in Australia and around the world who embrace scientific method and who also believe in a creator. The best man at my wedding is a CSIRO scientist who believes in a creator. In 2003, 50 scientists banded together to publish a text, "Why 50 Scientists Choose to believe in Creation".

As some have observed, it may be that the majority of those who believe in a creator are not included in the consideration of scientific fundamentalists because they DO NOT engage in fundamentalist tactics. Also, as Ken has rightly observed, most modern Christians do not fit the stereotype of "creationist fundamentalism". Most Christians I know accept that the universe is billions of years old, that geological processes takes millions of years, etc.

It is an interesting irony that modern science actually arose because it was assumed that there was a Creator who had made a world of order, which should therefore be capable of being studied. Science and faith are not the opposites some would assert.

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by Kal

(in the spirit of the OP and the concensus that followed)

you can place unproven/unprovable things in the faith basket, and I respect that and have no qualm whatsoever with it, but for a faithless athiest like myself I cannot do this. Since I have no faith, I can only take small peices of evidence and make my own decisions and conclusions from them.

sir, you are not as faithless as you make yourself out to be! faith is not just about religion you know, we all have faith in one thing or another.

I have heard that if you jump off the sydney harbour bridge holdong a cat you are very likely to do great harm to yourself.... having said this are you going to try it to see if i am right or are you going to believe me? I dont think anyone has actually tried it so who knows, maybe what i heard is wrong

[xelasnave]

RE............
4. Another author decries creationism as unscientific. "if you are a scientist being whatever school you must already know the rules of the game....I will entertain "the science" if it entertains the rules of science." After asserting that creationism does not play by the rules of science, the author evicts creationists. "Observe the dress rules and you can come in....otherwise no entry".

So is such a position fundamentally wrong or right

I may not agree with what you say and will not fight to the dead for your right to say it but I enjoyed reading your thoughts and compliment you on a very well presented proposition.
Again thanks to the moderators for sufferring the pain of anticipation so that folks can present their views.
This is healthy and I for one now hold more respect for the ID scientist than I did only days ago when I thought they would not recognise the expectations of science.
Clearly many scientists have faith ther is more to things than their observations confine them to.. maybe I am jealous having fallen victim to a cynical view of life... sad when life has dealt me a fantastic hand.
My concern with our society is that the morals are going down hill.,, and frankly I will support anything that gives folk something to believe in, a purpose and a meaning... and above all a reason to be good and just.

Just remember folks I dont think I have ever said that I dont believe in God my lack of belief is in religion and its application by man.
OK I am prepared to listen.. what I would like to hear is some specific proposals as to what is to be taught... after all this is about education not religion ,faith or God. Specifics can be managed and hopefully minimises the possibility of a fundamentalist responce from either side.
alex

[xelasnave]

To Rod...Sorry I thought I had addressed you by name at the begining of my post.. I only just noticed and felt it proper not simply to edit and add in case you had read it already. I tend to write fast and loose (no doubt all have noticed) but if I take time to think things through I would not post one single thing anywhere anytime... so I send things off somewhat half baked and somehow learn to live with the mess. Down side sloppy text upside you all know what is on my mind...not suggesting anyone needs to know however... but I like to think this enables me to be candid.

Have a great day and keep the observsations coming.

alex

[fringe_dweller]

To my knowledge, there hasnt been in history one act of violence, coercion, invasion, political power hungry/seeking movement/party/army, war. mass murder by an organised group of these dangerous 'scientific fundamentalists'.
Sadly, cant say the same for the faith based fundamentalists of the many persausions throughout history. I think on the british tv crime shows they call this having 'form'.
As had been said many, many times before, with the term Creationism having so many different shades of gray in its camp, all the way from yes, darwin is maybe sorta onto something possibly, and that God moves in mysterious ways, and so who knows? maybe thats the way he/she did it, all the way up to the hardline 6000 yr old earth scenario (which btw is the main version I see when reading the modern current ID U.S evangelical version, which is really the version this thread is about, or so I thought)
how does one take ID seriously as a political/scientific movement when even amongst the creationist camp there is so much confusion and division!? is it like a icecream bar and you just pick what flavour suits your taste/mood? pretty hard to hit a moving target eh! its like fighting shadows! whereas 'science' is just a sitting duck due to its characteristic and pre-requisite openess and accountability to the ID snipers and their nothing better to do think tanks/marketing juggernaughts.
wow a whole 50 scientists!! must be true! geez how does that compare to the 70 000 aussie scientists/science teachers who signed the anti 'ID in aussie schools science classes' petition last year?
and I dont think you need a PhD to know when something is far fetched and a bit smelly, just common sense and experience?

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by ving

sir, you are not as faithless as you make yourself out to be! faith is not just about religion you know, we all have faith in one thing or another.

I have heard that if you jump off the sydney harbour bridge holdong a cat you are very likely to do great harm to yourself.... having said this are you going to try it to see if i am right or are you going to believe me? I dont think anyone has actually tried it so who knows, maybe what i heard is wrong

In the context of my answer, I was referring to faith as religion, since that is how I interpreted the usage of the word from Doug who I quoted.

Out of context to what I quoted, of course I have faith. If I hold a pencil outstretched and let it go I have faith that it will fall

[mickoking]

I am, like the majority of posters here, a evolutionist. But I will defend the right of creationist's to put their theory forward and to have it intelligently debated in an open forum such as IIS and even at school.

I think that is the way to go BTW good thread.

[mickoking]

'scientific fundamentalists'.

They exist and science hasn't been 100% for humanity either. The Atomic bomb is probably the best example of science being used against humanity. There were also plenty of scientists who worked for, and used data from the Holocaust. Science is simply a tool, not something to be venerated. It is very good in achieving its aims but it also has short falls.

Just my 2 Bobs worth

[matt]

Originally Posted by mickoking

The Atomic bomb is probably the best example of science being used against humanity.

Well, a corruption of Oppenheimer's original work. He himself later denounced the monster that his work later became.

But yes, science can also be turned to evil pursuits. Again, a reflection of the individuals who make the decision/s to twist something beautiful

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

God did a good job creating Evolution

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Kal

In the context of my answer, I was referring to faith as religion, since that is how I interpreted the usage of the word from Doug who I quoted.

Out of context to what I quoted, of course I have faith. If I hold a pencil outstretched and let it go I have faith that it will fall

Well actually Andrew you mis uderstood my reference to faith.
Since I was talking about both sides of the issue, ie theists and atheists, I meant by faith, those things we can not prove empirically, but are most happy with, go into the respective faith baskets. So in my book an atheist has as much faith in his beleif as a theist has in his. Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Doug

[Orion]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

God did a good job creating Evolution

God did a good job creating man who created Evolution

[Glenn Dawes]

Hi guys,

I haven’t looked at this thread for a couple of days – talk about busy and I am pleased with the way the discussion has been conducted.

Firstly thanks to Rodstar for his great post and you are right I could be taken as some war monger! This probably needs a slight explanation. The opening thread was something I have been looking to put into words for some 30 years (why rush into anything ). I’ve seen immense frustrations across a wide range of people in the community from the obvious ones like teachers to even a perplexed guide at Jenolan Caves who was baled up by a Creationist when explaining the geological history of the caves to a group.

Rodstar , I never stated ALL ID people were uneducated about science, in fact I know of a well known astronomer in Aust who is. But overall they are in a minority.

I think we need to also think of what we are referring to when we say ‘GOD’. The God of ID is based on the literal description of a dubious text written by MEN around 1800 to 2000 years ago. Why do I say dubious? This is not from an atheistic view but are you aware there are a number of other documents (scriptures?) that didn’t make the cut? So the bible was not only written by men but somebody/people then decided what made the holy text and what didn’t. I was told this by a bible scholar who also told me that the original Hebrew word “Yom” (no idea of spelling) used in Genesis can just as easy be translated to ‘a period of time’ and not necessarily ‘a day’! But the creationists took this as the first few days, then counted (made an educated guess) on the number of generations, multipied by whatever, and you get 6000 years.

The other classic is the phrase “word of God”. As you can see from above I have gone to some length to lay its authorship on men but we can go further. The fact is the bible contains no information not known in the general population at the time it was written. Except for a wonderful philosophical basis there are no divine revelations, no specific predictions of future events. Remember, for hundreds of years the Earth was supposed to be the centre of not only the Solar System but the whole Universe. It took a while but science (using the scientific method) finally proved this, purely faith-based concept, as false. No Christian today would dare question this, but they used to!

This might surprise some, but I feel the IDers real motives has little to do with the Creationist concept. They know, even in the Christian community they are in a small minority. Church attendances have fallen dramatically and parents today don’t automatically send their children to Sunday School. This is their way of getting the word out to the masses.

(and may God have mercy on my soul)

Glenn

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dawes

(and may God have mercy on my soul)

Glenn

Amen.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Well actually Andrew you mis uderstood my reference to faith.
Since I was talking about both sides of the issue, ie theists and atheists, I meant by faith, those things we can not prove empirically, but are most happy with, go into the respective faith baskets. So in my book an atheist has as much faith in his beleif as a theist has in his. Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Doug

OK, I misinterpreted what you meant. In a discussion of ID Vs evolution I see the word faith and think of Church on Sunday

Yup I agree with what you are saying. If I have faith in one thing, it is my own judgement!

[Doug]

Glen wrote:

The other classic is the phrase “word of God”. As you can see from above I have gone to some length to lay its authorship on men but we can go further.

Actually, the Bible never claims to be written by God, and only some parts are said to have been inspired by God, but still written by men except for the stone tablets Moses lugged down from the mountain. Please don't go on through life thinking the Bible claims it was written by God; well meaning, but misguided men make that claim.
'Yom or Yome, mostly means a day, however if accompanied by suitable other words and context can mean a period or an era eg 'in the day that....' could mean an era or a period, whereas; 'there was evening and morning the second day' etc. is a bit difficult to stretch into a billion years or so.
The other interesting comment you make is referring to the claim that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Again, the Bible makes no such claim, nor does it support a flat Earth understanding. It is a great pity that people just assumed that the Earth was the center of all things, just as it is a great pity that the RC Church decided to butcher 'unbelievers' during the times of the Spanish inquisition and other incidents, I could go on and on as no doubt could you and others.
My point in addressing these issues is not to generate strife, rather to set a few records straight and to acknowledge that there have indeed been some unfortunate stances taken at times. BTW As I understand it, Universities were originally founded by the Church, which was a good thing, but then again it made life difficult for pioneers like Galileo and friends.
Well I don't want to take this off topic, so I'll leave you in peace at this point,
cheers,
Doug

[Glenn Dawes]

Hi Doug

[QUOTE=Doug;180067]Glen wrote: Actually, the Bible never claims to be written by God, and only some parts are said to have been inspired by God, but still written by men except for the stone tablets Moses lugged down from the mountain. [QUOTE=Doug;180067]

I agree, of course it was written by man. The 'word of God' phrase was what was pushed by my church (when I went) and quite commonly used by the people supposed to know.

[QUOTE=Doug;180067]'Yom or Yome, mostly means a day, however if accompanied by suitable other words and context can mean a period or an era eg 'in the day that....' could mean an era or a period, whereas; 'there was evening and morning the second day' etc. is a bit difficult to stretch into a billion years or so [QUOTE=Doug;180067].

Do you think the people of the day would have any concept of billions anyway (no wonder it is interpreted as 'day')

[QUOTE=Doug;180067] The other interesting comment you make is referring to the claim that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Again, the Bible makes no such claim, nor does it support a flat Earth understanding. It is a great pity that people just assumed that the Earth was the center of all things, just as it is a great pity that the RC Church decided to butcher 'unbelievers' during the times of the Spanish inquisition and other incidents, I could go on and on as no doubt could you and others.
My point in addressing these issues is not to generate strife, rather to set a few records straight and to acknowledge that there have indeed been some unfortunate stances taken at times.[QUOTE=Doug]

I certainly accept what you say and that many stances taken reflect the attitude of the church at the time - which really are Men (often peddling their own self interests in the name of God)

[QUOTE=Doug;180067] BTW As I understand it, Universities were originally founded by the Church, which was a good thing, but then again it made life difficult for pioneers like Galileo and friends.[QUOTE=Doug]

Absolutely, the Vatican Observatory remains a major astronomical research body. There is no conflict here with ID because the Catholic Church has rejected creationism.

Glenn

[astroron (Ron)]

I have followed this thread closely and with interest.
I came across this article on the BBC website, take a look it will concare with all Glenn says.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

After much reading on the subject of ID, I have selected some notations worth placing here.

You may notice that ID is NOT a Christian belief or faith. The proponants of ID are attempting to 'attach' it to Christainity to use Theology to give their theory a basis.

This first Quote is the basis of the ID theory:

"The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" (ID) was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes."

This 2nd quote shows their own confusion

"Intelligent design does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one or more must exist."

One or More?

This 3rd quote shows he does not have a clue

"Dembski in The Design Inference speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements."

This 4th quote shows that not only Atheists are against ID

"The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds. Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material."

The unfortunate part of this ID is that the 'Church' is being dragged into it without being taught the actual beliefs behind the founder.

Blame the founder, not sections of the community.

I (a Christian) do not take hold of this ID.

This theory could almost be labelled as a 'cult'.