Trader writes:
Once again, everyone has motives. All the people who post on this forum have motives
Given. Everyone in the world has motives, good or bad, beneficial or harmful to the rest of society. The real question is not what someone's motives are. The real question is WHAT is the evidence supporting a certain position and is it verifiable. Someone can be using the wrong motives for advocating a position adequately supported by emperical evidence and which more accurately depicts reality. And vice verse, someone can have the best motives in the world but advocates a position (religious, scientific, moral, political, etc.) which has no credible emperical evidence to back it up and/or does not reflect reality. Motives alone are subjective and honestly have no place in determining whether a proposal adequately reflects reality.
Trader writes:
The motives behind someone who wishes to teach or perpetuate ID is based on either religion or the pursuit of truth or science. The motives behind someone who wishes to teach or perpetuate Darwinism could be based either on religion, antireligion, pursuit of truth or science.
What is 'Darwinism'? If you are going to use an ambiguous term that most scientists disavow you need to define what it means. Are you talking about just biological evolution or are you using this all inclusive to mean naturalism? If so, the proper term is naturalism (rejection of the supernatural) not Darwinism (since naturalism has existed as a philosophy since the dawn of man).
And how is pursuing research in biological evolution religious if this is what I am construing from your statement?
Trader writes:
If you wish to define science as something that doesn't pursue the truth and ID is something that does pursue the truth then, I won't argue with you.
Where do you derive this from? Who is proposing this? So are you saying that ID trumps science? What exactly are you trying to say here?
Trader writes:
Although, ID can be placed into scientific framework that allows it to be a casual competing explanation for origin of life and the origin of what is beyond life.
So now you are proposomg ID as science? You just said you agreed that science 'doesn't propose the truth'. So than in your logic, ID shouldn't reflect reality either.
I actually do not have an issue with ID if defined as a philosophy for the supernatural origination of life. However ID is not science and should not be treated as such because it a. is not falsifiable (cannot be refuted) b. it is not substantiable, verifiable or testable (how can one substantiate, test or predict a supernatural, capricious event). ID is really philosophy/religion in the guise of science. This is what most scientists have a beef with.
Trader writes:
Motives behind perpetuating Darwinism could easily come from the faith of antireligion or atheism. (I'm not accusing you of the following.) Darwinism could also be an attempt to build a cocoon or a bubble around your psyche in order to shield yourself from the realities of life or religion.
Nice double-edged sword you have there. It cuts both ways. And again you will have to define 'Darwinism' here. True science attempts to remove motivation out of the equation in order to determine rational, logical and substantiated explanations of natural phenomena. Anything else move out of the realm and role of science and into philosophy and religion and should be treated as such.
Trader writes:
I'm not asking anyone here to be upfront and honest with me.
Do you really think all of us 'pro-evolutionists' are evil people attempting to destroy your religion and will use an dishonest measure to do so?
You do realize many of us are previous Christians (I was one for over 20 years). We have just decided to take a hard, rational look at all the evidence and determine for ourselves where this evidence leads. Do you also realize there are many Christians and other religious people (including Christian scientists) that have no problems with biological evolution and incorporate this into there worldview (it's call Theistic Evolution, look it up).
I myself am an agnostic atheist because I don't see enough evidence to advocate the belief in God or any other supernatural cause. My motive is seeking the truth of reality, that is it. It has to do with an honest look at all I have experienced, seen, read, etc. If I saw evidence for the existence of God and determined he was someone/something worthy to follow, I would.
Trader writes:
Bubble worlds are somewhat personal and this particular one may require introspection for people to see it within themselves.As a trader I have learned that shielding myself from the realities of the world can easily be injurious to my bank accounts.
I may not like realities as I suspect many Darwinists don't about, I have to learn to deal with reality. Building a bubble world and isolating myself from it isn't a good way to do this in my opinion.
Again double-edged sword that can be used against all people including religious people themselves.
Trader writes:
Darwinism, symbiogenesis, biological self-organization models, natural genetic engineering, intelligent design, assemblism (my hypothesis) and creationism can be categorized from the most natural to the most supernatural explanations that attempt to explain life.
Except that symbiogenesis, biological self-organization models, natural genetic engineering are naturalistic explanations of the originiation and evolution of life without resorting to supernatural explanations. How do these constitute supernatural explanations when they are utilizing natural chemical and biological laws and phenomena? Can you say the same for ID? How exactly does God (or any other supernatural 'intelligence'/deity) build life ex nihilo? How did God create DNA? Can you explain this with science? If not than it is not science.
Trader writes:
I hope I didn't ramble too much.
I think good rational, logical and non-emotional interchanges like this are the only ways to bridge these two worldviews.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct grammer and spelling
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea." Douglas Adams
™ Version 4.2