Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 49 of 230 (653900)
02-25-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:33 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
OK. This is precisely the kind of vitriol that is unhelpful.
I am a scientist who believes teleological principles MIGHT have led to and through the processes ending in where we are today. In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence. But I also don’t believe in magic. I believe in purpose as a POSSIBLE REASON for the evolution of the universe and life through 13.7 Billion years. It’s certainly true that that’s enough time for probability to do a lot, but the final answers are a long way away, and to deny everything based on bias and vitriol or repugnance is not the way of science and it should not be the way of faith either.
There should be an understanding that we (as humans) are all connected (if by nothing else, quantum entanglement), and we all have our puzzles we deal with in life and about this remarkable Universe and the peculiar and improbable location we find ourselves in it. If we don’t have those puzzlements, I, at least, think we should. We don’t have to believe in anything. We KNOW about the second law of thermodynamics; we KNOW about chaos theory and probability, and strange attractors etc. etc. etc. We KNOW about the horizon of the CMB which limits our view into the past of our universe so we can KNOW nothing past about 14 Billion years ago; we KNOW of the incredible SCALE we are dealing with in our universe of around 65 orders of magnitude (10 65 OR SO) from the exceedingly large to the exceedingly small, with us conveniently plunked right in the middle somewhere. That has always puzzled me. I have sought meaning and in doing so, I have sought explanation from Science. What I have found is that there are no clear explanations nor predictions and hugely more questions than answers AND, most bothersome I find are that technical walls we run into which we can never hope to breach to get all the information we need to clarify our need for answers. I find nothing offensive in anyone’s belief. I just choose not to reward STRANGENESS WITH ANGER. It is not productive, and furthermore, maybe some of these strange ideas are, in fact correct. Some of them at least.
JCH
What justifies practically every thing you say, and what proves false most everything the atheists are saying in this thread, is the ANGER and closed mindedness that is present from those who represent (or think they represent) mainstream science.
The understanding that you seek is impossible because of politics and emotion, nothing else. Why is EMOTION such a large part of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:33 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 55 of 230 (653920)
02-25-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
02-25-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
If you think anyone in this thread is being inappropriately angry then you should bring it to the attention of moderators by posting to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. It's not usually a good idea to appoint yourself moderator.
I used the term mainstream science, and science, and in no way referred to this thread in particular.
The idea that someone who becomes angry is wrong is, to understate the case, a bit of a stretch.
And I didn’t say or imply that in any way. Anger inhibits rational discussion — that is my point, and I suspect, a large part of the thread starters point.
Unethical and/or immoral behavior (or in the case of the Aldrin video, also badgering behavior) does tend to draw an anger response from people. This is due to repugnance at dishonesty and immorality and has nothing to do with any scientific opinions someone might hold.
Getting back to this thread, repugnance at dishonesty can go both ways. From message 6, we have this;
jar writes:
Until and unless those who are trying to market the con job absurdity called "Intelligent Design" actually present first the designer critter for examination and testing and second, the method/model used by that critter, Intelligent Design should be simply relegated to the same wastebasket
It’s repugnant to ID proponents that ID has to present this to become science, while evolution doesn’t have to present anything concerning the origins of life. Yet it’s obvious that a far higher percentage of ID proponents are capable of discussing it without vitriol, than are evolution proponents. A look at dozens of threads on these, as well as other scientific discussion forums, are proof of it.
Percy writes:
But none of this is the topic of the thread.
Exactly right — YOU are off topic, I am not.
If you have any factual or evidential positions concerning the thread's topic that you'd like to argue, you should focus on those.
I'll CONTINUE to do that, but I won't spend much time, as it's probably suspension time for me. This was in the opening post;
jchardy writes:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
Come to an understanding, the anger that begins in the highest realms of the scientific community trickles down through education, websites like ‘talkorigins’ and ends up in just about any type of scientific discussion media, is a large reason that vitriol abounds in questions and challenges to the established paradigm in biology, a paradigm that is a long way from having all the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 2:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024