Intelligent Design, on SBS TV tonight

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 !

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Steve H)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Steve H)]

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] (Paul)]

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 (Steve H)]

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 (Mike)]

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