Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 230 (654666)
03-02-2012 5:22 PM


Whoa
Holy shit... did anyone else realize that the OP is the longest phrasing of the adage: "Science answers the how, religion answers the why"?
Amirite? Well, replace religion with "ID", which is practically religion.

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 122 of 230 (654678)
03-02-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
02-23-2012 4:34 PM


APPOLOGY FOR BEING TARDY
quote:
Paulk: I appologize for not responding to your message earlier. Though I began this thread, I really am not very good at this and must still learn how to insert items so will be taking the primer at some point, but I'm a physician and have limited time availability. Just incidentally, are you any relation to John & Elinor Paulk of Seabeck, WA?
That asside, I am responding to your message sequentially in this quote, so pardon its length.
In response to your notation of the Wedge Document purpose of the ID movement-":
My belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
In addition — except when conscience is a factor (a human rights issue) --- bringing legislation or law into this controversy is also a major error.
This should be a discourse between educated and well meaning intellects and neither side has any proof that their point of view is absolute. Thus, the logical approach is to allow open discourse and debate based on verifiable data (either historic, scientific or mathematic in foundation) without restriction.
Religious tenants are NOT really testable nor verifiable, BUT it is also not justifiable to speak of those with faith based belief with disdain or to dismiss in whole the foundations of their beliefs. They are their beliefs and in our open society that must be allowed without prejudice (whenever possible!)
For most, ascertaining the LIKELY origins of the universe; matter (dark and ordinary) and organic life, (sentient and non-sentient) must be a SCIENTIFIC investigation. Thus, allowing analysis and — wherever possible, testing to verify or deny formed hypothesis and theories is imperative.
Recognizing the difficulties attending human agreement in ANY situation; EXCEPT IN CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS, (and these must be spelled out clearly and debated openly as well), IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THOSE MOTIVATED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM RESTRICTING INVESTIGATIONS AND SHOW MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN RESEARCH (WITH CERTAIN HUMANITARIAN RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED BY MOST ON BOTH SIDES AS REASONABLE).
Similarly, Scientists and mathematicians should endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith. NOT to become faith-based necessarily, but endeavor to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith. This requires courage, but as with the dangers inherent while working with a supercollider or viral DNA/RNA, they should face the challenge with the same level headed ad open minded attitude.
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks. They are NOT shunned by the ID movement at all, and to claim otherwise would be a lie.
Let us not forget that the ID text book "Of Panda's and People" was a creationist text book, rewritten to use "Intelligent Design" in place of "creation".
So let us be clear. ID is religious, and - even though not all ID supporters are creationists - creationism is an integral part of it.
Next, in response to your statement:
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists — etc.
This is unequivocally true. The initiation of the belief or faith-based movement certainly initiated with the bias of those who (fundamentally) were believers from the beginning. Their use of science is not really other than to help confirm their bias. That is their right, so long as they do not skew their information or data to prove some component of a theory. For that reason, it is my opinion that the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be. In fact, the best science is done by those who undertake a study with a negative bias. I.e., that their hypothesis is WRONG or INCORRECT and the data, IF AFFIRMATIVE and statistically significant is then more credible.
RELIGION SHOULD STAY OUT OF SCIENCE other than to utilize it to better understand the LIKELY applicable facts to faith that science can uncover, or not uncover. What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories. SCIENCE SHOULD BE SOUGHT AS AN INFORMATIONAL TOOL BY THE FAITHFUL, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THEM.
In addition, POLITICS should stay out of scientific research. While research frequently court financial support from politicians, they do so at a great price. THE TWO DO NOT MIX WELL and politics almost always ends up contaminating science, making it either unwieldy or breaking down the credibility of its conclusions.
ID is primarily about influencing education, seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution. A position that is mainly motivated by religious objections.
Anybody who ignores these points does not understand ID.
Next, to your statement the ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution.
This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong. The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based belief. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS TASK MADE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BY THE INTRANSIGENCE AND VENOMOUS RHETORIC OF SOME ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY. Fortunately, they are really a vociferous minority, but they do great damage to both Religious and Scientific institutions. They always have! But here in the 21st century, we should be able to extract ourselves and behave reasonably with one another. We now know that --- much as quantum entanglement connects us all at the Planck level; we are entangled at the spiritual level, in the same universe, with the same fundamental beginnings and all with the same fundamental goals and end.
Thanks for your input.
JCH [/quote]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2012 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 8:37 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2012 4:16 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 123 of 230 (654681)
03-02-2012 8:23 PM


KEY POINTS EARLY IN THIS DEBATE
quote:
This was my reply to PAULK early in this ID debate. He brought up the key concerns of Scientists relative to ID and I wanted to share it generally. JCH
I am responding to his message sequentially in this quote, so pardon its length.
In response to his notation of the Wedge Document purpose of the ID movement-":
My (JCH) belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
In addition — except when conscience is a factor (a human rights issue) --- bringing legislation or law into this controversy is also a major error.
This should be a discourse between educated and well meaning intellects and neither side has any proof that their point of view is absolute. Thus, the logical approach is to allow open discourse and debate based on verifiable data (either historic, scientific or mathematic in foundation) without restriction.
Religious tenants are NOT really testable nor verifiable, BUT it is also not justifiable to speak of those with faith based belief with disdain or to dismiss in whole the foundations of their beliefs. They are their beliefs and in our open society that must be allowed without prejudice (whenever possible!)
For most, ascertaining the LIKELY origins of the universe; matter (dark and ordinary) and organic life, (sentient and non-sentient) must be a SCIENTIFIC investigation. Thus, allowing analysis and — wherever possible, testing to verify or deny formed hypothesis and theories is imperative.
Recognizing the difficulties attending human agreement in ANY situation; EXCEPT IN CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS, (and these must be spelled out clearly and debated openly as well), IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THOSE MOTIVATED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM RESTRICTING INVESTIGATIONS AND SHOW MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN RESEARCH (WITH CERTAIN HUMANITARIAN RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED BY MOST ON BOTH SIDES AS REASONABLE).
Similarly, Scientists and mathematicians should endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith. NOT to become faith-based necessarily, but endeavor to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith. This requires courage, but as with the dangers inherent while working with a supercollider or viral DNA/RNA, they should face the challenge with the same level headed ad open minded attitude.
Next point by Paulk was: "The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks."
Next, in response to Paulk's statement:
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists — etc.
JCH says:
This is unequivocally true. The initiation of the belief or faith-based movement certainly initiated with the bias of those who (fundamentally) were believers from the beginning. Their use of science is not really other than to help confirm their bias. That is their right, so long as they do not skew their information or data to prove some component of a theory.
For that reason, it is my opinion that the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be. In fact, the best science is done by those who undertake a study with a negative bias. I.e., that their hypothesis is WRONG or INCORRECT and the data, IF AFFIRMATIVE and statistically significant is then more credible.
RELIGION SHOULD STAY OUT OF SCIENCE other than to utilize it to better understand the LIKELY applicable facts to faith that science can uncover, or not uncover. What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories. SCIENCE SHOULD BE SOUGHT AS AN INFORMATIONAL TOOL BY THE FAITHFUL, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THEM.
In addition, POLITICS should stay out of scientific research. While research frequently court financial support from politicians, they do so at a great price. THE TWO DO NOT MIX WELL and politics almost always ends up contaminating science, making it either unwieldy or breaking down the credibility of its conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paulk then said: ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution.
JCH response: This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong.
The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based belief. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS TASK MADE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BY THE INTRANSIGENCE AND VENOMOUS RHETORIC OF SOME ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY. Fortunately, they are really a vociferous minority, but they do great damage to both Religious and Scientific institutions. They always have!
But here in the 21st century, we should be able to extract ourselves and behave reasonably with one another. We now know that --- much as quantum entanglement connects us all at the Planck level; we are entangled at the spiritual level, in the same universe, with the same fundamental beginnings and all with the same fundamental goals and end.
Thanks for your input.
JCH

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2012 12:21 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2222 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 124 of 230 (654687)
03-02-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:09 PM


I would like to respond...
I would like to respond to your post but I can't tell what comments are yours and what comments are responses that you (should be) quoting.
Please look upthread for the posting suggestions that were provided and give them a try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:09 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 10:47 PM Coyote has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


(4)
Message 125 of 230 (654700)
03-02-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Coyote
03-02-2012 8:37 PM


Re: I would like to respond...
quote:
Hello, Coyote. I don't quite understand why my format makes it difficult to reply but I will have to look at the tutorial because you're not alone -- many don't like my way of responding. In this piece I was rplying to each component of Paulk's response to the first thread I posted. This is an example--
the response to Paulk, so I stated his words:
Paulk then said:
ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution --.
Then MY (JCH) response was:
"This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong.
The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based--etc."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 8:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2012 12:55 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2012 8:47 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2012 9:06 AM jchardy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2222 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 230 (654706)
03-03-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jchardy
03-02-2012 10:47 PM


Re: I would like to respond...
Look at message 114 above.
Now use the Peek button at the bottom right to see how the formatting is done.
It is counterproductive to use a formatting style completely at odds with the board standard.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 10:47 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 127 of 230 (654707)
03-03-2012 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Admin
03-01-2012 7:40 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
admin writes:
If you want them back you'll have to convince me through PM (Private Messaging) that you'll work at figuring out how to quote and how to indicate where your cut-n-pastes came from.
jchardy writes:
quote:
Hello, Coyote. I don't quite understand why my format makes it difficult to reply but I will have to look at the tutorial because you're not alone -- many don't like my way of responding.
jchardy doesn't appear to have figured it out.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 03-01-2012 7:40 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9370
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 128 of 230 (654719)
03-03-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jchardy
03-02-2012 10:47 PM


quit quoting yourself
Drop the damn quote boxes already!!!

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 10:47 PM jchardy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 129 of 230 (654720)
03-03-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jchardy
03-02-2012 10:47 PM


Re: I would like to respond...
Use the "quote" or "qs" tags to mark other people's words as quotations. For your own words, just type those in - no need to quote.
Surely a Naval officer understands the merit of conforming to a best practice? This style of in-line quotation of relevant material has emerged as our best practice for unambiguous communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 10:47 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jchardy, posted 03-03-2012 3:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(5)
Message 130 of 230 (654730)
03-03-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:23 PM


What to say
My (JCH) belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
I'm keen to see this discussion happen. How do you imagine it would go?
IDist: I believe there is purpose and design behind the universe.
Scientist: There is no evidence to support that belief.
IDist: I know.
Scientist: Anything else?
IDist: I think that just about covers it.
Scientist: I have work to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:23 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


(1)
Message 131 of 230 (654742)
03-03-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
03-03-2012 9:06 AM


Re: I would like to respond...
Ah!! Finally, a straight foreward clarification!! I've been misusing the "quote" component! I'm headed out on a long trip with only intermittent contact, but will try to improve seaquentially now! JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2012 9:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 132 of 230 (654772)
03-04-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:09 PM


Re: APPOLOGY FOR BEING TARDY
Aside from the formatting issues, which make the post quite hard to read, the content is also unclear.
You seem to simultaneously hold that those on the science side are wrong to oppose the ID movement and that what the ID movement is seeking to accomplish is wrong and should be opposed.
Might I suggest, that if you truly wish for a fresh start, you and people like you should distance yourself from the toxic ID movement ? Find another term to replace ID for your use. Cease to defend the ID movement, as you do in the OP - which reads more as a demand that the opponents of the ID movement should surrender, cease to point put the facts about the ID movement, and allow the corruption of science education to proceed unhindered.
I also feel that your call for a scientific study of Faith is not something that would be welcomed by many of the Faithful - who are more likely to see it as a further attack on their beliefs (and with some cause). It seems more likely to cause further conflict than anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:09 PM jchardy has not replied

  
rick
Junior Member (Idle past 3342 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-04-2012


Message 133 of 230 (654774)
03-04-2012 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:04 AM


Re: purpose in science
ID is not about purpose. ID is the only alternative left when evolution theory becomes another victim of pessimistic meta-induction. ID sits there waiting for evolution theory to be falsified. I have read this here:
http://www.digitalcosmology.com/...gainst-intelligent-design

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:04 AM lbm111 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:42 AM rick has not replied
 Message 156 by DWIII, posted 03-07-2012 1:51 PM rick has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 134 of 230 (654776)
03-04-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by rick
03-04-2012 6:31 AM


Re: purpose in science
Can you explain your position a bit more, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by rick, posted 03-04-2012 6:31 AM rick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM Trixie has replied

  
SensibleBloke
Junior Member (Idle past 4523 days)
Posts: 1
From: Australia
Joined: 03-04-2012


Message 135 of 230 (654778)
03-04-2012 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


NO ROLE FOR I.D. IN SCIENCE!
Well John S. Hardy, from your rambling, then if I.D. is not wanting to divert science nor include divine intervention into scientific reasoning, which is impossible anyway.
Then, there is no argument at all with I.D.ers, since science will just remain as is. There is certainly no reason to promote I.D. in any science classes for that same reasoning.
There's no argument.
It is only when they try to insert divine intervention (magic) into the scientific theories surrounding the origin of the universe, thus render it unscientific. should logically cause the I.D. concept to be excluded from science and science classes.
Such insertion of divine magic or intervention, makes them as bad and silly as the fundamentalist creationists who very stupidly, keep trying to get magic accepted as scientific.
From a friend's blog:
The moment Creation (magic) is apparent, it cannot be made scientific (form a theory with consistent, measurable and predictable outcomes). So they cannot ever exist together.
Magic (creator intrusion) destroys predictability which destroys any scientific accountability and scrutibility.
That is the principle reason Creation cannot be taught in science classes. Because there's no science involved.
It cannot even be promoted as an alternative scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory
It is only a religious argument based on faith alone, never a scientific argument, so it still cannot logically be introduced into science classes, EVER!
As he stated: Any form of magic (divine intervention) anywhere renders any concept unscientific, (esp. the beginning of the universe) therefore excluding it totally from science and it is grossly evident that they cannot teach unscientific concepts in science classes as scientific.
Since you stated that basically I.D. advocates have no quarrels with scientific theory. Like the fact of evolution.
ID and Creationism should never enter the science classroom!
Which you should also logically agree with.
Edited by SensibleBloke, : Fixing Gramatical errors not noticed in first preview and elaborating points that were not clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 12:36 AM SensibleBloke 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