|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:32:54 PM | The ID folks are thinking hard But not hard enough! It seems to me they are missing one key point, who designed the designer?
Seems to me ID, Creation or Evolution all have the same problem, when/how did it all start?
At least with evolution we can observe and conceive what has happened since and we need only imagine/believe in random chance.
But with ID or Creation where does the creator come from? If you can believe he made himself or was spawned by random chance then why not us too? If the Creator/Designer does not need a creator/designer, then why do we? I find it easier to conceive of a few elements randomly forming into a simple cell and the complexity of life evolving from it. Rather then a Super Being being randomly and fully formed by himself out of himself? What are the odds on that?
Who designed the designer? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:09:53 PM | Trewq - I think you're pretty much preaching to the choir at the moment. You took my words a little out of context, since I also described what they were thinking about.
As I look more into this, the ID proponents may be doing science a favor by forcing us to look more closely at its epistemology. I shudder to think of ID sharing equal time with other science, as has been proposed in one lawsuit in California. What on earth are they going to spend all that time teaching? I haven't manage to find any suggestions for an ID curriculum yet - that seems to be being left up to the schools - sounds like a good basis for another round of lawsuits to me. But I do think it's very valid to look at how knowledge is gained and not be shy about revising our methodologies and even philosophies to move us forward.
Evolution hasn't been fully explained/proved in terms of current scientific knowledge and understanding, but those who choose to adhere to its fundamental principles do so because we judge it to provide more 'reasonable' explanations for our existence and the environment we live in than any other theory that we have considered. So now we have a degree of judgement to introduce into our tried and true scientific rigor. Subjectivity isn't rigor. Should probability be sufficient to satisfy science? If science doesn't face such realities, it may be in for some unexpected surprises! Maybe scientists should be thinking harder too! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:28:57 PM | | Not really at you QJ2, I agree that both sides need to open their minds and consider all possibilities. One thing I have learned from history is that we have always been proven wrong in our beliefs. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:39:56 PM | Quietjohn- I hate to nitpick your post, but I think these are some important distinctions. I agree that epistemology as it relates to the sciences is an imperative philisophical query, but I must point out that it has not been unaddressed. There is a wealth of literature on this topic in philosophy, and is a subject often discussed amongst physicists in relation to quantum physics. All I.D. does is confuse people who are not familiar with the scientific method, becuase it proliferates false infomation, and promotes logically fallacious attacks on the methodology serving only to obfuscate the issue. Science has never been shy about revising methodology, and neither has philosophy. In fact it is fundamental to the process of both disciplines.
"Evolution hasn't been fully explained/proved in terms of current scientific knowledge and understanding"
Please no offense, but this is the kind of statement that perpetuates confusion about science. Nothing in science has been FULLY explained. That's not what science is. You can say the same about physics. Science develops predictive models of natural processes based on factual data. The nature of those models are influenced by a larger scientific paradigm, but those paradigms are also being constantly honed and reshaped as new information is attained. I can't stress enough the importance of the difference between method and dogma. Dogmas provide destinations. The scientific method is a journey that brings us ever closer to a profound knowledge of the natual world. Think of the destination in science like you would a limit in calculus. The fact is that "in terms of current scientific knowledge" Evolution is one the the strongest, most emprically supported, predictive theories there is. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 5:26:18 PM | Hey wonk nice use of the word. Obfuscate - to render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
Althought with regard to my text. I thought I was clear, sometimes we need to step outside of the structured world in which we live. Say for instance, look out a different window to gain a different perspective.
look at the mind as two seperate entities 1) the body mind. and 2) the analogical mind. Both minds have consciousness but are different. I'm sure you've heard of body mind consciousness. That would be the emotional body, or the "sack of chemicals" so elequently refered to in a prior posting. Ironically it is just that. Body mind consciousness is chemical responses of a cause and react nature. Including emotions and physical needs and desires. The anological mind is the mind that is the unified logical mind, a mind that reasons, dreams, imagines, the creative and abstract. Perhaps a compare and contrast analogy of the two would be that the body mind consciousness is the mind that can recite by rote,scientific theory verbatim. The analogical mind can apply it outside of the standard strictures that would otherwise limit a creative mind. (combine the two and you've got something)
To understand what I'm saying in my post perhaps one would have to look outside of the classic scientific, physiologic and theological philosophies. Most of my information is garnered the same way everyone else does. Reading, studying, learning. I happen to apply it a bit more creatively. Though I only lay claim to a very small portion as original. I find the world and the people more interesting if they can use their minds for other than the mundane. "If you continue to think the way you've always thought, You'll continue to get what you've always got". I repeat this quote from an unknown author because I find it so very relevent, especially in forums like this, where people bandy scientific dogma around like it's the ten commandments. (lol, apropro - whatever) Even if I agree with what they are saying I believe that the new science should be applied to new paradigms instead of being applied completely to old principles.
I look around this room and I see some very brilliant minds but I also see minds that are bound to dogmatic beliefs. The new sciences will have to be applied to new formats and the quantum world will help facilitate that. In old science, consciousness was never applied because it was unable to be explained. Old science is the science of the physical world and consciousness did not fit, better to pack it away to the theological closet and debunk it as religious dogmatic banter, but now as science is looking inward to a greater world than we have ever thought imagined, it is discovering that there is more to consciousness then that sack of chemicals that runs our body. We know that we use a small portion of our brain to run our bodies. What is the rest of it for? The quantum world will help explain that.
Visualize energy (the quantum world) as clay. What molds that clay into matter. into an object? Could not our brains be the hands that mold the clay into reality?
"What creates the world in which we live? Could all that we don't know about the brain be that which creates this world in which we live? Conscious Intent. The observer. Some might call this God."
Maybe this is a holographic universe as Michael Talbot proclaims?
time to go. later | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 5:51:30 PM |
we have always been proven wrong in our beliefs. LOL - ain't that the truth! I guess in all of the definitions/differences between science and religion, perhaps the most probable is that criticism is a central theme of science whereas religion seems to discourage it.
No offence taken, wonka. - and that's all I have to say about that!
Sili - you still haven't told us what those carbuncles, er.... corbels, ...... er carboys ...... whatever are! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 6:09:06 PM | Just because a theory is "labeled" or "proclaimed " to be "scientifically" feasable or " logical" doesn't necesarily make it absolute fact. It means that someone has found method or techqnique that supports someones hypothesis. Doesn't mean it is always the correct one either. My imagination does not work on a level that is vivid enough to support the idea that somthing as complex as life itself , with all of it complexities, and millions of different genetic code sequences, just randomly occurred and in the right order. The odds of a lifeform just randomly developing , is just too mind boggling to even fathom. Too many vaiables to go wrong for it NOT to be by divine intervention.
Here is some info I found on the web by a professor who was an atheist , an his conclusion
that he reached about the subject after 50 yrs. of searching for answers.
NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 6:20:44 PM | | Silivors- Okay, I think I have a better idea where you're going. I think you're terms are a little confusing. Analogical, as I understand it, is simply reasoning by analogy, which is largely how our cognition works, but not the whole picture. This is an important point for different reasons than you intend, I think. Analogical reasoning is crucial to science, but it is also responsible for irrational thoughts as well. This is a helpful issue in understanding science, acutally, so I would like to elaborate. It's what I call the "faces in the clouds" phenomenon. Our minds our so successful at cognition largely because we are eager to seek patterns in our environment. We do it all the time. In fact the ability to recognize autonomy in objects is this principle in action, but it is important to bear in mind that not everything that appears meaningful is meaningful. That is exactly what is so exciting about the advent of science is that it provided a sieve by which we can evaluate the patterns we experience to determine which are meaningful and which are simply "faces in the clouds." Example- the notion that the sun revolved around the earth was an example of our ability to discern patterns from our envirnoment, but it was erroneous. I reapeat- not all patterns we discern are meaningful. It is important that we have an effective method by which we can objectively determine which are. Now, you are using analogical to reference all conscious cognition, and there is more to cognition than that, but let's just agree for this sake that we mean analogical to reference conscious cognition. I assume you are juxtaposing that to involutary brain function, yes? If so, I think you are on the wrong track with the proposition that emotions and desires belong entirely to the later realm, which illustrates the danger of relying too heavily on dualistic models. The two overlap; I don't think it is accurate to present them as two entirely seperate entities in that regard. Also, you equate science with dogma, when the two are actually counterpoised. You show this yourself when you iterate my point that science is dynamic. Modern paradigms are quite evolved compared to the fully reductionist view of a century ago. As for what is the rest of our brain for, I believe someone already addressed the concept of redundency, so I suggest you go back a page or so and re-read that post. The notion that we only use ten percent of our brain is largely a misconception. It would be more accurate to say we use a small percentage AT ANY ONE TIME. Also as someone mentioned (Was it raziel?) There is a lot of redundent processing in the brain. If their wasn't, our brains would not be as adaptable and effective as they are. I won't go into the details of that as this is already getting too long. As far as matter being clay that our minds shape- that's an interesting notion, and not entirely unsupported by quantum physics, but I still see it as a fanciful extrapolation of quantum effects. I think it is far too early in our understanding of particle physics to start running off on philisophical tangents. I've read the holographic universe, and, although the basic idea is interesting and, as a metaphor, can help to get the gears turning on some of these issues, I found it to be a pretty poorly presented supposition. Did I get the gist of your point, or am I way off? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 6:24:50 PM | Oh, for the love of some anonymous supreme being, are we on this Flew thing again? That is nonsense; it is yet another story cooked up by the I.E. people to confuse the issues. This was already bandied back and forth in another thread.
"Just because a theory is "labeled" or "proclaimed " to be "scientifically" feasable or " logical" doesn't necesarily make it absolute fact."
Amazing that someone again comes out with this statement that shows a profound misunderstanding of science, right after I just addressed the issue. Wow!
"My imagination does not work on a level that is vivid enough..."
Well, that pretty much sums it up. Nuff said. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 6:48:08 PM | Oops! I forgot one of the things I wanted to mention to silivros...
"sometimes we need to step outside of the structured world in which we live. Say for instance, look out a different window to gain a different perspective."
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. In fact,    and... oh what the hell, let's throw in a dancing banana. 
If you follow the history of science in detail, that's what it's all about. People often see art and science as diametrically opposed sometimes, but I contend that they are actually very similar in this regard- great scientists, like great artists, are uncommonly creative, and great artists, like great scientists, are very rigorous. Science is the balance of creativity or thinking outside the box and evidence to buttress theory. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 6:49:44 PM | Not quite on the same page.
Me thinks you missed the gist, or jest, but you prove my point none the less. thanks
good luck.
P.S. Quietjohn - - carbules - - will find that reference. have it in some lecture notes from 10 years back, with references. undoubtedly in a box in the attic. They are within the neurons in the brain -- I'll leave it at that for now. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 7:20:58 PM | [QUOTE] Oh, for the love of some anonymous supreme being, are we on this Flew thing again? That is nonsense; it is yet another story cooked up by the I.E. people to confuse the issues. This was already bandied back and forth in another thread [/QUOTE]
Just because someone beleives differently than others "they are confusing the issue?"
hmmm.... I thought my post had total relevence to the topic, since it clearly deals with the topic directly. Sorry, not everyone supports just one opinion , but that is the whole point of forums (differing opinions)
on topic--Science cannot conclusively prove evolutionism is absolute fact . That is the point that needs to me made here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 7:23:12 PM |
I shudder to think of ID sharing equal time with other science
I shudder to think that lightbulbs will be sharing equal time with other types of burritos.
ID is not science. Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
ID is the theological belief that a supernatural being created the universe. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 7:25:02 PM | Science cannot conclusively prove evolutionism is absolute fact
Especially not to new earth creationists and flat earthers (not that any of you happen to be).
Science doesn't ABSOLUTELY prove anything. Its all theory and hypothesis. All scientific postulation constantly goes through rigorous testing. Many scientific laws are extremely well defined and well supported by evidence. But they aren't absolute.
The fact that it isn't ABSOLUTE is a large part of what makes it scientific. If scientific laws were said to be absolute they could not be verified or refined, or even refuted.
ID can be said to be absolute in terms of its framework because it pertains to a religious idea.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 7:37:02 PM | The straw man logical fallacy- to misrepresent another's position, and by disproving the misrepresentation, claim it has been demolished.
"Science cannot conclusively prove evolutionism is absolute fact . That is the point that needs to me made here."
This is a straw man logical fallacy. It is misrepresenting what science is, which, if you had read the last page of posts you would need not repeat that fallacy ad naseum. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 7:58:28 PM | "The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made."
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
...Keep going, I thought I'd interject a description (maybe not the best one, but one), because there are a few reading that did not understand, or maybe remember the scientific method...
(again, remember that I understand all 'observers' have bias and that will guide what they observe, invent as a description, etc... so this isn't perfect, but one of the best ways we've got so far for ascertaining material truth about the universe.) Galileo might agree. :)
Galileo's head was on the block
the crime was looking up the truth
and as the bombshells of my daily fears explode
i try to trace them to my youth
And then you had to bring up reincarnation
over a couple of beers the other night
and now i'm serving time for mistakes
made by another in another lifetime
How long till my soul gets it right
can any human being ever reach that kind of light
i call on the resting soul of galileo
king of night vision
king of insight
--Galileo, Indigo Girls
(Thank goodness for his daughter, 'Maria Celeste,' aka Virginia, too!) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:02:45 PM | Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Its nice to see that yet another person takes the scientific method seriously.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:21:34 PM | IN THE BEGGING "GOD" CREATED NOT HYDROGEN OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE, BUT "GOD" CREATED. GOD SITS OUTSIDE THE TIME DOMAINE, EVEN TIME HAS A BEGGINING AND A END IT IS A IF YOU WILL SUBSTANCE THAT HAS TO END.
GOD SEES ALL OF TIME AND ALL OF CREATION AT ONCE NOT AS IT COMES. , AND THANK GOD WHO TELL THE BEGINNING FROM THE END, AMEN. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:36:29 PM | THANK GOD WHO TELL THE BEGINNING FROM THE END, AMEN.
Huh? I can tell the beginning of today from the start of tomorrow. I could disagree with someone about the exact moment that happens… most agree that is midnight, but there are other opionions. The ‘end’ of today is the ‘start’ of tomorrow—even if you take that to metaphysical extremes… just a start of something new, not an ‘end’ in any final sense. I can't stand when people take 'religion' in ways not intended. Suppose you just got with... there is NO beginning and there will be no END (in either sense, for our purposes of understanding). AMEN. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:38:46 PM | In fact exact moments only exist relative to the observer.
Oh... um... amen. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:43:18 PM | | wonkavision, I love that we agree on many things. 'Religious' people would call that lots of things... that may actually be very 'ironic,' (in more ways than you know) but I think that teaches lots in a bigger picture! Thanks. You've got interesting things to say. :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:46:13 PM | Nice car, Lotus!!!!
Oh yah, and creationism and evolution and all that....
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:56:43 PM |
But when he get home will he be able to cover up all of his eyes
--Sting, Stolen Car
You could click on my name and read my last few posts if you want to know a whole different side of me from science interests... (but don't take me all TOO seriously, ever, unless I say I am being very serious... I joke lots. I tend NOT to joke about threats to life, though.) | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 674 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 8:57:57 PM |
Science cannot conclusively prove evolutionism is absolute fact .
Science can not conclusively prove any theory is a fact.
Such as gravity, Newton’s Third Law, Bernoulli’s effect, etc…
And yet we use the predictions from those theories in aerodynamics to build and fly planes. How far does your doubt extend? Would you fly?
If you believe something else; what and why do you believe it? Disproving a naturalistic origin to life, only disproves that… it proves nothing else to be true. (Although disproof base on incredulity is not a particularly strong argument).
Scientific theories are always tentative. I understand QuietJohn’s point on being uncertain as to how creativity in science is achieved. Messy labs, weird dreams and alcohol have probably inspired more ideas than most scientists would care to admit, let alone write up in the methods section of a peer-reviewed journal. I still maintain, find inspiration were you can and test the living bejeebers out of it.
However, the weight of evidence supporting evolution is very much akin to the weigh of evidence supporting the theory that the heart pumps blood (A Greek philosopher suggested it sucked blood and that theory stuck until William Harvey challenged it in the 1600s).
Not only have we directly observed thousands of cases of microevolution (such as the classic story of industrial melanism in the peppered moth which is taught in every intro biology course) but we’ve also directly observed many cases of speciation.
This is not simply a philosophical question. Or a question or what gets taught in schools. The predictions and use of evolution theory are numerous:
• bacteria developing anti-body resistance
• developing vaccines for highly mutatable flu viruses
• conservation of endangered species
• maintaining genetic diversity of agriculture crops (we have collections of seed and living heritage varieties as well as wild stocks to guard against disease/pests/climatic changes/etc)
• import/export policy regarding exotic species
• creation of industrial enzymes
• pesticide resistance and strategies to reduce toxicity/application rates | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 9:15:39 PM | I LOVE dryad's posts! Thank you!
So I am clear about my position, I not only 'believe' evolution happens, I know it does. I don't take that process to some kind of ethical understanding. (Though, so many people do that I find myself *trying* to explain this in terms of an
'ethical' idea--because that is what is understood by too many people--explaining in a way that could make sense to who I am teaching at the time. I think my way of altruism is both a reasonable 'ethic' and scientifically sound theory and 'metaphor' ... Maybe this is like trying to explain why a 'cruel and hateful winter' happens. That happens. Why would a loving God make winter and snow? Why would a loving god 'need' evolution... much the same kind of idea.
The sun sets. The seasons change. I don't try to take those things happening as GOD DOES or DOESN'T EXIST or DUE TO WRATH, or whatever else- stories people come up with. Winter, spring, summer, fall--where seasons happen--happen. NO ethical thing happens, but seasons do. This is the way things are. Evolution is much like that. | |
|
|
| Page 27 of 156
|
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 |
|
Home
login 
