|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5962 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate? What exactly is your point? Humans are related to humans -that hardly proves evolution in the macro sense. It is a scientific fact that humans reproduce and make other humans - and they pass on their DNA, mutations and all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
What method or system can I use to determine what "kind" something is? Look at it for a start -kinds are pretty obvious. If they can reproduce that would make them the same kind though one human may not become pregnant by a specific other human but you nonetheless know they are the same kind.DNA is a bit problematic because we share 50% of our DNA with bananas which taken strictly would mean we are half banana or bananas are half human but luckily we can tell the difference.I'd say that DNA shows that our common creator used the same materials in different arrangements to make different proteins for different creatures depending on what they consist of. We need to be able to break down foods and incorporate them into our maintenance and growth so I suggest that accounts for our biochemical similarities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
So, does that mean that my housecats and Siberian Tigers are not the same kind? Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.
Does that mean that robins and crows are not the same kind? Well again, do the experiment.
What about species that reproduce assexually, like worms and bacteria? How do you identify these things? Are worms worms and are bacteria recognizable entities? Would you say they are the same kind or different? Is a bacteria a worm? Is a worm a bacteria? I think you know the answer to that.
If classifications of "kind" is so obvious, then why isn't there a list published somewhere that everybody pretty much agrees with like there is for the gentic and morphological trees of life? Genetic and morphological trees of life are human constructs -there are different ways of interpreting them depending on your preconceptions. If you believe in evolution from a common ancestor, you make trees of life according to your philosophical beliefs -you assume they are related according to features like backbones but embryologically they often develop differently meaning they are not related or they would be developing the same way.Frogs and humans have hands that have digits but the one starts out as a plate from which fingers separate out and the other has buds that grow -so homology doesn't seem to make the grade.Maybe a hand is just a good design principle.
Really? I was not aware that a complete banana genome had been decoded. Can you link to a source to this information? Sorry, read it some time ago - maybe you can source the information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
How about non-Christians David Berlinski and Michael Denton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Should we "teach the controversy" regarding if the Holocaust happened? Yes. teach that too -very important when the truth becomes distorted according to someone's agenda. History tends to repeat itself if we live in ignorance of what mankind is capable of or try to pretend that something didn't happen that did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
ID in science classrooms threatens in the same way Holocaust denial in history classrooms threatens How so?The holocaust is a well documented fact of history and the enormous possibility that God played a massive part in human history is also worth knowing about. If it's rubbish then don't worry about it having an effect -if it's true then everyone needs to know that there is a controversy and that we didn't necessarily evolve from pond scum by pure accident. Compare and contrast instead of indoctrinating into one viewpoint and insisting that it is truth if there's a good chance that it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
DNA tests show that humans are related to non-humans. Not really. apparently we are also related to bugs and bacteria and so many things -but is that really what the results show or is it a wishful interpretation based on a presumptive worldview. Was the 'evidence' forced to fit the initial belief system?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hello Granny
the belief that god has influenced world history could be taught in comparative religion classes. Religion should not be allowed to creep into science classes. Well this is the problem you see. We don't want the religious stuff in science class either. We want the science in science class.All the stuff about different religions and what they believe can stay in religious class -you're absolutely right there. What we want is for teachers to present the evidence that is provable for evolution- the natural selection and variability part and then to explain that anything more than that is an historical concept and that certain assumptions are made according to one's worldview of what has happened in the past. Class should go something like this: Evolutionists believe that everything can and must be explained in purely material terms (no God or creative intelligence of any kind allowed)...and then go on to explain uniformatarian assumptions, macroevolutionary assumptions used in analysing fossils and on and on to the question of origins explained from a purely materialistic viewpoint. What can or cannot be proven should be explained and what is absolutely proven should be explained as well as what the differences are. From the ID perspective, what are the assumptions, worldviews, historical reasons for these assumptions. What do ID proponents believe in a scientific sense and why?Why don't they accept the 'material only' outlook and what is their take on the situation. Then it should be clearly explained that scientific advances based on empirical science (not historical concepts and worldviews like evolution and creation) are what are responsible for technological advances like sending men to the moon, computers, cellphones etc. All of this will help kids to think critically about how assumptions are used and where they derive from in the first place. This way they can separate pure science from philisophical belief systems instead of having one belief system systematically jammed down their unsuspecting throats as 'science' while the other very real scientific possibility gets relegated to the 'religion' or 'fairytale' section of their education. Since neither historical worldview can be categorically proven (how can you repeat history except perhaps with a time machine)- kids can decide for themselves which sounds more feasible with the whole picture presented to them and those that don't like the idea of there being a God can opt for the material and those that know God can continue to believe in the light of supporting scientific evidence. Where's the threat? Technology continues to advance using empirical science and the question of origins gets relegated to its correct place.People get to think critically again and we can all be happy.
So by your own argument, we would have to know that something is true before teaching it. Yes which is why we shouldn't be teaching any more than micro -evolution (natural selection and variability) as fact.
Beretta writes: we didn't necessarily evolve from pond scum by pure accident Do you never tire of repeating the same ridiculous straw-man version of evolution? What is your simplified version? Did we come from the minerals in the rocks, or did we come from chemicals (washed out of the rocks) in the primordial soup -(a more dignified method of describing the primordial pond scum that gave birth to our early ancestors)Is your great,greatgreatgreat++++ grandparent a rock or do you prefer to start at the single-celled organism as your earliest relative? This is not a straw man argument -it had to start somewhere and the stories presented pretty much as fact in our science classes boil down to exactly these sorts of scenarios.It doesn't sound quite so 'scientific' this way but lets call a rock a rock and make it simple and easily understood for the kids.
There is no evidence that ID has a good chance of being true. In fact, the opposite is the case. Evidence, what evidence??? Keep your eyes shut tight and you will never see. You are a very loyal member of the Darwin Party that much is clear and loyalty is a great trait but the truth of what the argument is all about has got to leak through at some stage.There's a paradigm shift going on -your philosophy is old and tired. Wake up to reality -lots of people are and the truth of what real science is,is infinitely satisfying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
(ID).. encourages people to not ask questions Not so, it encourages people to think critically and divide pure empirical science from materialist philosophies.
when you could simply say..."Eureka, God did it!!"? or...eureka, evolution did it!!!
We complain about how we, as a Country, are falling behind other developed Nations in the areas of math and science This is actually not true, technological advances continue in the absence of evolutionary assumptions. Only natural selection and variability have anything to do with science. Origins philosophies do not put men on the men. It only imagines where men came from in the first place -an unprovable historical concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Well label your photo and lets see what other possibilities can be derived from the pure facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
So when we can cross human DNA with the DNA of bacteria and have bacteria produce proteins\etc. that can be transfered back into humans without autoimmune rejection symptoms (ie - it is human), this proves that bacteria and humans are the same kind? No perhaps it proves a common intelligent creator that provided other creatures for us to use, eat etc. How would we eat them if they were fashioned from entirely different materials? How would we digest them? A carpenter makes things from wood. God makes carbon based life using 20 different amino-acids in various combinations in the various proteins. That way we can break them down and our bodies can build them up into what we need for growth, metabolism, our survival.You're welcome to assume a common ancestor but that is not the only possibility and it should not be taught as fact when it is only an assumption based on materialist philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Except atheism is the absence of faith. Atheists have plenty of faith. They absolutely believe that there is no God (in the absence of evidence). They can't prove that, they believe it and they base all their assumptions on that worldview.It's called 'religion'. Science doesn't care about god. Empirical science doesn't care, but the materialist philosophies of atheists do care enough to insist there is no God and that everything should be based on that presupposition. Truth doesn't care what atheists think. It remains true nonetheless.God doesn't care what atheists believe, He just knows that they are running from him and can do that only up to a point - the point of total regret.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
As I've said, I find such use by creationist\christians rather amusing because of the contradictions involved between creationism\christianity and a pure ID approach I don't know that there's a contradiction but if there is -what specifically is the contradiction? I know that there are a range of beliefs that nonetheless support ID because it posits a designer. The individual's beliefs are not contradicted by those concepts -for example specified complexity. On the other hand there are those that believe in an old earth and a common ancestor which is completely at odds with what others believe. That doesn't bother anyone, the fundamentals are what is important -matter didn't create itself.One can be a YEC and an ID proponent at the same time. You can even be an evolutionist and an ID proponent (theistic evolutionists) and there are a lot of different inbetween positions. The point is that all believe in intelligent input at some point and that everything is not random and related to pure chance and natural law only. This corrupt version of ID prevents them from pursuing a pure ID approach. I disagree. The individual's specific religious beliefs are not needed or wanted in science, the science behind intelligent design is what is important in ID.
combining creationism\christianity with ID is of the same nature as combining two or more versions of faith. Except that you keep your view of the individual details and agree to disagree which is not the same as compromising on those details.
This means that all the (logically valid) conclusions of science that are based on all the evidence of reality that we currently know and as we currently understand, are necessarily all equally valid representations of reality No I don't agree with that -logically valid is not necessarily true -they may be based on pre-existing suppositions and may not be equally valid because two opposing conclusions cannot both be true.However again, we are not worried about those differences in the ID approach but we can sort out the suppositions and the facts in time by working with the principles that lie behind ID ie. separating fact from assumption and empirical science from historical science. Got to go -will answer the rest of this when I can get back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I.D. claims that it could not have evolved and that God designed the eye Wrong -ID claims that the evidence does not support that concept as well as it supports special creation by an intelligence that acts beyond natural laws inherent in our system. The fact that creatures appear fully formed in the geological strata, remain essentially unchanged (ie. exhibit stasis) for the duration of their appearance and then disappear abruptly or (in other cases) are essentially the same as those now living, is better explained by special creation rather than by gradualism which is badly supported by the available evidence. Id also claims that wonderful stories of gradual evolution of,say the eye,are badly supported since all different kinds of fully developed eyes appear, not piece by piece, but complete in the geological record.Where are all the inbetween partly functional eyes? What would their purpose be that natural selection would retain them if they didn't work to begin with. Considering the many many parts that have to work together with nerves and brain co-ordination included in order to be of any use at all, it remains, to our thinking, inconceivable that no intelligence nor plan was involved. I realize that this is a hard concept for an evolutioist's mind to get around but nonetheless, it is a reasonable alternative to the evolutionary model of gradualism and just because you find it hard to believe, that does not make it necessarily untrue nor inconceivable. In the absence of pure proof either way, lets climb out of the evolutionary box and consider the alternatives. That's not encouraging critical thinking In the absence of absolute proof for your view, lets allow for the alternative models to be considered.That is critical thinking as opposed to indoctrinated thinking.
teaching students that "God did it, so no further investigation is needed" Nobody ever advocated that - you don't like the idea so you misrepresent it in order to make it look stupid. "Ok stop your work medical researchers, no need to work out how to fix eyes anymore, let's just pray." If you think that is what is going on, then you are not really thinking. We don't have to know where the eye came from in order to investigate it and work on technological ideas concerning it. Philosophizing about its origin is nice and interesting but lets just stick with the empirical science when studying it and technology will continue to advance.
the thought of you having any say whatsoever in our education system scares the crap out of me. The thought of evolutionists having total say over what we should believe about origins scares the crap out of me!
it is followed by a detailed explanation of HOW the evolutionary processes brought about the structure, or the change, or whatever it is we are describing. No, it is generally followed by imaginative stories of how evolutionists believe it happened with no evidence at all to back up their assertions just that solid belief that material mechanisms must account for everything.
The fact alone that we are even discussing whether something as vacuous as ID should be taught in our science classrooms demonstrates that science education in this Country is sorely lacking. The fact that we are discussing it and the discussion is accelerating all the time shows that we are moving out of our evolutionary indoctrinated coma and beginning to really think based on the advances in what we do know.
provide to us the I.D. hypothesis. What is the testable hypothesis put forth by I.D. I'm not here to write a thesis -there are so many good websites out there presenting these things -why must I repeat it? -would you like some references???? I'm debating general concepts not the specifics -you can read, go and look.Google it -go to ARN, go to crev.info Investigate it properly before you condemn -there's a good reason this stuff is catching on and believe me, it's not going away unless you can organize the death penalty for those who would dare to question Darwinism.
And while you're at it, why not provide us with even ONE new piece of usable information we have "learned" from I.D. What scientific advancement has it brought to the scientific community and/or the World as a whole. Most branches of science were started by people that believed that God was responsible for creation and that we therefore live in a rational universe with working laws. We do empirical science just like everyone else. Like I've said before, you don't have to prove where an eye came from to investigate the structure.
What do we know now that we did not know prior to the utilization of the new, revolutionary, scientific tool known as Intelligent Design And in the same vein who needs to know that we must have evolved in order to investigate what we see around us? Why would it be scientifically dangerous to not swallow that hogwash whole?You have been indoctrinated by the anti-ID hype -please proceed to investigate the issue without your preconceptions of what ID entails and get the real story then perhaps you will calm down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
What does it take to bring you guys out of the dark ages Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality.New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024