DescentBB

Jeff250 wrote:Hmm, well that's the lukewarm sort of response I was hoping I wouldn't get , but still, I assert that somebody who is even suggesting that a young-earth is possible and that all life was created abruptly isn't somebody who is taking science seriously (again, I'd recommend taking a look at your metaphysical bias).

Why is it that people always assume that if a being created this world and placed life on it... that is was done "abruptly"?

You and I don't know what process/methods were used. It may have taken a long time. Nobody here but you said it had be an abrupt process. Personnally, I think it took a while and learning how it's done is part of what Science is all about. Right?

Bet51987 wrote:TechPro, we do know. But no evidence I can show you will be convincing enough because of your beliefs. There is no way around that and its things like this that hurts education.

Bettina

Those figures are estimates... and they could be right. That's why Science is still working on those things. And like I said earlier, The whole process may have taken quite some time. There's no harm in learning about it because that helps us learn about the Universe around it.

Belief in a Supreme Being doesn't mean that the Supreme Being didn't use the Laws of Science to accomplish what was desired. A Supreme Being would be able to use those Laws (otherwise, He wouldn't be a "Supreme" Being).

I wasn't assuming it. You're allowing for the earth to be only 30,000 years old. Subtract 10,000 years for human history, and we have 20,000 years for life to show up on the scene. When you're talking in the context of the origin of all life, that is abrupt!

Jeff250 wrote:I wasn't assuming it. You're allowing for the earth to be only 30,000 years old. Subtract 10,000 years for human history, and we have 20,000 years for life to show up on the scene. When you're talking in the context of the origin of all life, that is abrupt!

Read again. I said:

TechPro wrote:By the study of known records, at the very least probably older than 30,000 years. Could be 5 billion years old.

Did you miss the words "probably older than"? Also, Did you miss the last part?

You're making your case worse. \"Probably older than\" means that you might even be willing to allow younger earths than 30,000 years old.

Jeff250 wrote:You're making your case worse. "Probably older than" means that you might even be willing to allow younger earths than 30,000 years old.

Well, every earth has to have a starting point (or birth point). I think it's funny you're suggesting a earth has to be older than 30,000 years in order to be a earth. ... OK, so now I'm just teasing ya.

All I'm saying is that based on the records of Man, recorded 'history' only goes back a certain amount of time. Anything further back has to be revealed through scientific study. Therefore, It's pretty certain the Earth is older than 30,000 years if not as much a 5,000,000,000 years old.

Science has been working hard to be more precise and Scientists are pretty confident they've got the calculations worked out and place the age of the Earth around 5 billion years old (if not older). Further study helps to validate those calculations and if something is found to be incorrect, then Science adjusts. When adjustments are made, we all learn from it.

Comment I wished to make on something prior in the thread; there is not likely to be evidence that necessarily points to the creation and related hypotheses, but there is evidence that indicates it is feasible. I recall some papers that found the \"flood\" model for continental drift actually works quite well.

Jeff250 wrote:For example, if the universe was created 10,000 years ago, then we will see nothing farther than 10,000 light years away. But, oh wait, we do.

Your missing two important points here.
1: As has been pointed out, not all young earth creationist believe that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago. Most of them believe that only the earth (and actually only its surface) is young.

2: Those who say that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago simply answer that God created light from those distant stars and galaxies "already on the way". In fact, a very large portion of the visible universe never existed at all except as a kind of Divine Movie.
When we witness a supernova that is further than 10,000 light years away from us, we must believe that the star NEVER existed, God created the light from that Supernova, But He never created the star itself. MOST of what we witness in the night sky has nothing to do with reality. It's just... entertainment.

There is, of course, NOTHING you can do to argue against viewpoint #2, other than to point out how it lacks... elegance.

Foil wrote: Let's not turn this into another endless "Creationism-bashing" or "Evolution-bashing" thread. Let's keep it around the topic of school standards.

And that is a very important point, since they are two entirely different issues.

One of the reasons I don't like the public school system is that it forces the government to make decisions about things it does not understand and is no good at. Such as Science and Philosophy. This issue hits from both directions.

The government is supposed to decide whether ID has any scientific merit, and the government doesn't have a clue. Please note that during the Scopes trial, the government decided that Young Earth Creationism had the best scientific backing. You can't decide science by governmental fiat. The government will always make a political decision.

The government is supposed to be deciding between theism and naturalism, and again, it's an area where the government has no business. Let the people decide for themselves.

BUT, as long as you have the public school system, the government will be FORCED to stick their nose in where it is not wanted and does not belong. It's a serious problem that grows worse every year. The naturalists are celebrating because they think they just won a "victory" here. But the government is fickle, and the pendulum of public opinion could very well swing even further in the conservative Christian direction in the near future, and then not only would we see this decision reversed, but we would could see the government mandating religious indoctrination in the public schools. <sigh>

And if you don't believe it can go that way, please note that in Alabama, the 11th circuit court just upheld the states ban on selling "sex toys", using the argument that the ban is constitutional because "the state's interest in preserving and promoting public morality provides a rational basis for the challenged statue."

We are ALL (Christian, Wiccan, Atheist, whatever) better off when the government stays very narrowly focused on the job of governing and doesn't try to tell anyone what they should believe, or how they should behave, just so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's rights.

Kilarin wrote:2: Those who say that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago simply answer that God created light from those distant stars and galaxies "already on the way"...

There is, of course, NOTHING you can do to argue against viewpoint #2, other than to point out how it lacks... elegance.

I've heard that argument a few times before, myself.

Personally, I feel it's not only "unelegant" (doesn't seem to fit the orderliness of the rest of God's creation), but it's also a poor argument even on a theological basis because it implies God is deceitful!

Foil wrote:

Kilarin wrote:2: Those who say that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago simply answer that God created light from those distant stars and galaxies "already on the way"...

There is, of course, NOTHING you can do to argue against viewpoint #2, other than to point out how it lacks... elegance.

I've heard that argument a few times before, myself.

Personally, I feel it's not only "unelegant" (doesn't seem to fit the orderliness of the rest of God's creation), but it's also a poor argument even on a theological basis because it implies God is deceitful!

I agree. A deceitful God would not be a God.

Kilarin wrote:2: Those who say that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago simply answer that God created light from those distant stars and galaxies "already on the way". In fact, a very large portion of the visible universe never existed at all except as a kind of Divine Movie.
When we witness a supernova that is further than 10,000 light years away from us, we must believe that the star NEVER existed, God created the light from that Supernova, But He never created the star itself. MOST of what we witness in the night sky has nothing to do with reality. It's just... entertainment.

Wow! I've never heard of that. I could never accept that kind of thinking.

.... on with the topic at the start of this thread...

Bet51987 wrote:And, its about time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17132925/

Bee

Personnally, I think it's a very GOOD thing that they are working to "unbias" the material being taught and I think it's great that they ... "Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe."

Sure, some will still object, but that's their personal problem. The Schools should NOT be determining what people believe. That's up to the individual to decide.

Kilarin wrote:Your missing two important points here.
1: As has been pointed out, not all young earth creationist believe that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago. Most of them believe that only the earth (and actually only its surface) is young.

It was supposed to be more so an example of the scientific method and falsifiability. Yes, obviously if you believe in a slightly modified young-earth theory, then that might require a slightly different example. This one was by no means designed to falsify every single possible creation myth under the sun! Also, I'm going to have to question your assertion that most young-earth creationists believe in an old universe! I'm sure some do, but I've never to my knowledge met any of them, and I personally know a few dozen young-earth creationists. Moreover, all the big young-earth presences on the Web (I'm thinking of namely AIG and ICR here) that I've read adhere to a young-universe theory too. None of this is enough to show that most young-earth creationists are young-universe, but I'm still highly skeptical that it could be otherwise. I'm curious though--What experience has led you to believe that most young-earth creationists are old-universe?

Kilarin wrote:2: Those who say that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago simply answer that God created light from those distant stars and galaxies "already on the way". In fact, a very large portion of the visible universe never existed at all except as a kind of Divine Movie.
When we witness a supernova that is further than 10,000 light years away from us, we must believe that the star NEVER existed, God created the light from that Supernova, But He never created the star itself. MOST of what we witness in the night sky has nothing to do with reality. It's just... entertainment.

There is, of course, NOTHING you can do to argue against viewpoint #2, other than to point out how it lacks... elegance.

Which is why viewpoint #2 would never be a legitimate theory in science to begin with. We only run into issues like these after we begin accepting faith-over-science trumps. These trumps are something that neither science nor the science classroom are going to be willing to accept though, nor should they. It is a fallacy to think that evolution and creation are just two different unprovable theories competing on the same playing field. They aren't. Evolution is the direct result of empiricism. Creationism is the direct result of a metaphysical presumption about the universe, like that God created the universe in X and Y manner, and then adding as many cheap hacks and "epicycles" to that presumption as necessary to reconcile it with observation.

TechPro wrote:Sure, some will still object, but that's their personal problem. The Schools should NOT be determining what people believe. That's up to the individual to decide.

There are some who believe that pi is exactly equal to three. The schools' job, in math class, is to teach that pi is an irrational number that can be approximated by 22/7 or 3.14. Those who believe that pi is exactly equal to 3 (and thus believe that they can "square the circle" or other such proven-impossible tasks) will complain.

Likewise, in science class, it is the schools' responsibility to teach what science has discovered through empirical, verifiable observation. Notice science classes don't teach about astrology, or that cold fusion works, or other unscientific malarkey. Philosophy and theology are also outside the scope of science class. It's not the science teacher's job to bend to the beliefs of the students, it's the students' job to assess the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion.

DCrazy wrote:There are some who believe that pi is exactly equal to three.

Yep, there are. And it's not just a few people who deny the results of modern mathematics. As I mentioned before:

Foil wrote:...you might be surprised to find out that there are actually a number of well-organized "alternative math" groups who argue some of the widely-held principles and results of Mathematics. One good example is the idea of "Constructivism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructi ... thematics)), which denies many results of classical and modern mathematics; and there are many others, including groups who believe Pi is a rational number, or those who don't accept the concept of infinite sets.

So, (again back to the original topic), should public school math teachers be required to "present all the theories, and let the students decide"? Heck, no! Math educators have an obligation to present the best and most well-validated information available. The same goes for public school science educators.

Jeff250 wrote:I'm curious though--What experience has led you to believe that most young-earth creationists are old-universe?

I was educated in a private school system where Young Earth Creationism was taught. The ONLY theory being expounded there was:
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That these two verses imply that the creation of the entire universe happened first, then at some point in time, probably MUCH later, when "earth was without form, and void", God spent six days reshaping the earth and populating it with life, then rested on the seventh.

You will note that on day three:
Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The "He made the stars also", is added almost as an after thought, leaving wide open the possibility they were created previously and are mentioned here not to state when they were created, but just to assert that they WERE created.

I've also heard this "Young Earth" view from other young earth creationists besides those I grew up around. I've run into the more radical "Young Universe" view occasionally, but much less often. And, (no offence intended), but usually among those less educated in science. It's a view that's easier to hold if you haven't actually THOUGHT about it much. The Young Earth view has its own difficulties, of course, but they aren't quite as glaringly obvious as the Young Universe view.

So personal experience would be my only guide for saying that the "Young Universe" point of view is rarer than the "Young Earth" stance. I wouldn't stake any money on the fact.

Jeff250 wrote:Evolution is the direct result of empiricism. Creationism is the direct result of a metaphysical presumption about the universe, like that God created the universe in X and Y manner, and then adding as many cheap hacks and "epicycles" to that presumption as necessary to reconcile it with observation.

I'll have to disagree to a certain point. IF the universe had been "created" out of nothing 10,000 years ago, AND, assuming the creator did not deliberately attempt to make the universe look as if it had previously existed, evidence of this creation should be detectable by science.

For example, lets ignore the dating issue and look only at the Biblical statement that God created the entire universe out of nothing. Now if you were trying to support this statement before the 1900's, you would have had a difficult time doing so. But then looking at red shift, cosmic background radiation, and other factors, we suddenly discovered that the theory that the universe had an actual beginning point in time isn't so unsupported after all. Rival theories still float around, but right now it appears that first there was nothing, and then, suddenly, something.

Does this prove creation? No, Naturalists can (and have) come up with reasons for the Big Bang as well. They must defend their own philosophy as well! But it is the KIND of evidence that should be looked for in order to build up a scientific case.

The concept of telling the difference between things that were designed, and things that happened by entirely natural processes, is a legitimately scientific one.

Foil wrote:So, (again back to the original topic), should public school math teachers be required to "present all the theories, and let the students decide"?

And the Libertarian still has to ask, Should there be public schools since they force this kind of decision to be made?

Like has been pointed out earlier, not everyone will be happy with it. You can't please all the people all the time.

Foil wrote:So, (again back to the original topic), should public school math teachers be required to "present all the theories, and let the students decide"? Heck, no! Math educators have an obligation to present the best and most well-validated information available. The same goes for public school science educators.

I wanted to add a comment to this but can't. Its perfect and its exactly how it should be for all subjects.

Kilarin wrote:...And the Libertarian still has to ask, Should there be public schools since they force this kind of decision to be made?

Yes. Public schools have a duty to teach the truth or well-validated information. Creationism fits neither of these categories now or in the future.

I was never against creationism being taught. I was only against it being taught in schools as part of the curriculum. If you want to learn about creationism you can go to church or religious instruction like I had to do...but after the real classes.

Bettina

This is a real feather in the cap of Pastafarians every where. Even the Kansas School board has been touched by His noodley appendage.

Ford Prefect wrote:This is a real feather in the cap of Pastafarians every where. Even the Kansas School board has been touched by His noodley appendage.

STFU, YOU AND YOUR BS RELIGION!!!
...everyone knows the Invisible Pink Unicorn knows all!

Bet51987 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:...And the Libertarian still has to ask, Should there be public schools since they force this kind of decision to be made?

Yes. Public schools have a duty to teach the truth or well-validated information. Creationism fits neither of these categories now or in the future.

I think Kilarin was venturing the Libertarian question, "Should public schools exist?", but that's a whole other thread subject.

I'll disagree on a couple of points presented:

People stated that the \"appearance of age\" theory presented by young-earth creationists has problematic theological implications. (It indicates that God was being deceitful.) I disagree. God is not accountable to us- He can make the earth however he wants, and so long as He didn't do anything differently than what he said He did, there isn't anything deceitful about it. Let me give a real-life example. My brother-in-law does decorative painting as a job- he will take something like metal elevator doors and paint them to look as if they are wood. Doing so would be deceitful if he told his customer that it was genuine wood, but if he is asked to do the work by the customer, tells the customer that the doors are indeed metal, there is no dishonesty involved. Dishonesty comes into play when there is a difference between what is stated and what is, but not when there is a difference between what is stated and what there appears to be. Science isn't in the business of proving things, so you will never be able to pin dishonesty on God. I don't have a good reason as to why God would create the universe with the appearance of age, but that doesn't mean that He automatically did it out of a deceptive motive (if such is the case). I don't agree with young earth creationists- because I think they're making their science fit around their interpretation of the Bible, instead of using their science to assist them in their interpretation of the Bible.

The question of the appropriateness of origins theories being taught in the science class depends on the definition of science that you are working with. We can all agree that science is \"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.\" (taken from dictionary.com) The question is, why does this order in the universe exist?

Now, being a theist, I would say that God has made the universe to have a certain self-sustaining, orderly qualities to it that enable us to scientifically know it, but that none-the-less God is constantly sustaining and \"interfering\" with the natural running on the universe. This action by God is mostly unmeasurable & undetectable, thus it largely doesn't interfere with scientific experimentation & observation. This shouldn't be used as a cop out to avoid having to answer mysterious events scientifically, however, as has been done for years. A theistic scientist is responsible for assuming that in the present observation & experimentation, the outside influence will not be observable. On the philosophical end, it is the theist's responsibility not to add to the Bible- meaning that we are only told the large, philosophical parts of creation (Essentially that God was the originator of the universe, life & the species), and should depend on science to attempt to answer any further questions that they might have about how it mechanically happened. (At least for now, those details are very vague glimpses.)

A naturalist would say that's a bunch of crap. Science has to assume the non-existence of any outside forces, and strive to find an internal answer to everything. If you introduce an exclusion of the supernatural into your definition of science, you introduce a philosophical filter through which the science will done- one can have the science defined above without having to exclude that possibility of outside influence. (Assuming that the outside influence will not be specifically observable & assuming that it universally doesn't exist are two very different things.) Philosophically naturalists are somewhat justified in saying this- time after time ideas about science that where driven by religion have been disproved, but it remains a philosophical point. (Those ideas where driven by man's additions to the Bible.)

So the real battle is in the definition of what science really is. If science necessarily assumes that no outside being can exist, it commits itself to a naturalistic philosophy, and every moment spent in the science classroom is spent not only teaching kids about the order in the universe, but also teaching kids what they should believe. If science only claims to be about observing and experimenting on the order found in the universe, then origins are something that takes too much of a philosophical leap to validly have a home in a science class, because if you don't automatically exclude the possibility of an outside influence, it becomes an equally possible (if not more possible) answer for how life & different species came to be as pure chance.

snoopy wrote:A naturalist would say that's a bunch of crap. Science has to assume the non-existence of any outside forces, and strive to find an internal answer to everything.

No, science doesn't have to assume the non-existence of outside forces. Science has to assume NOTHING unless the scientific method provides reasonable, repeatable, and generally-accepted evidence for the existence of something.

If you introduce an exclusion of the supernatural into your definition of science, you introduce a philosophical filter through which the science will done- one can have the science defined above without having to exclude that possibility of outside influence.

You're confusing skepticism with derision.

(Assuming that the outside influence will not be specifically observable & assuming that it universally doesn't exist are two very different things.)

Both separate from realizing that the question and its answer are outside the scope of science anyway.

Philosophically naturalists are somewhat justified in saying this- time after time ideas about science that where driven by religion have been disproved, but it remains a philosophical point. (Those ideas where driven by man's additions to the Bible.)

You mean the entire bible, since it was all written by humans? Or are we going to add another philosophical stipulation that the Bible was once the pure word of God and tarnished by the hand of men?

So the real battle is in the definition of what science really is. If science necessarily assumes that no outside being can exist, it commits itself to a naturalistic philosophy, and every moment spent in the science classroom is spent not only teaching kids about the order in the universe, but also teaching kids what they should believe.

See above. Science class isn't as much about teaching kids what to believe as how to go about deciding whether to believe in something. Those who choose to put superstition, oral tradition, scripture, or whatever word of praise or disregard you have for it, above rational explanation and investigation claim to know something they don't, which is diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of science.

If science only claims to be about observing and experimenting on the order found in the universe, then origins are something that takes too much of a philosophical leap to validly have a home in a science class, because if you don't automatically exclude the possibility of an outside influence, it becomes an equally possible (if not more possible) answer for how life & different species came to be as pure chance.

And who gets to fill this void? The man in the pulpit who speaks from a position of unquestionable authority?

Snoopy, the assumptions are being made by theists, not science. Science makes no assumptions and in my opinion kids have a right to learn the truth through observations, experiments, direct and indirect evidence, and logical reasoning. What should not be done is to place by law the idea of an intelligent designer (aka God) as an alternative theory just because something in science is unexplainable. This amounts to nothing more than bringing the supernatural into the classrooms to fill the holes.

Each year new tools, like the LHC in particular which I follow, will help scientists close in ever further on those unexplainable portions of the universe and someday, science, not creationism, will answer the biggest questions...Why the universe expanded, how life evolved, and where it is going. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen....through science.

Bettina

EDIT... Dang I didn't see Dcrazys post. I like his better.

Snoopy wrote:People stated that the "appearance of age" theory presented by young-earth creationists has problematic theological implications. (It indicates that God was being deceitful.) I disagree. God is not accountable to us- He can make the earth however he wants, and so long as He didn't do anything differently than what he said He did, there isn't anything deceitful about it.

I said the theory was inelegant. Which obviously COULD be my simple mind misunderstanding the larger picture, but let me explain WHY I think it's inelegant.

on October 9, 1604 a new star showed up in the night sky, it was a supernova that later became known as supernova 1604 (sometimes astronomers aren't very imaginative.)

For a brief while, it was brighter than any other star, and even brighter than Venus. Then it faded from view because, of course, the source star had been blown to bits, there was nothing left but a cloud of expanding gas, and perhaps a small pulsar. With a good telescope you can still see the remnants, but they will continue to fade with time. And in a million years, there won't be anything left to see at all.

Or HAD it been blown to bits? Had anything actually happened at all? Because SN_1604 is about 20,000 light years away, so that means the supernova exploded about 20,400 years ago. If the entire universe was created instantaneously 10,000 years ago, then this spectacular and glorious explosion... never actually happened. And what Johannes Kepler spent a good deal of time studying, was just an illusion, not actually a glorious example of God's creation. The star SN_1604 never really existed at all.

COULD an omnipotent God have created the universe that way? Certainly. But WOULD He have? I could be wrong, but it seems VERY inelegant to me.

To put in perspective, It's like God creating Adam, not only as a mature adult, but with memories of having been a child raised by kindly parents. Adam might even find his mothers diary laying around, but would simply have to accept that it was an illusion created just to give "background story". Inelegant.

Bet51987 wrote:Science makes no assumptions

This is very much NOT the case.

Bet51987 wrote:and someday, science, not creationism, will answer the biggest questions...Why the universe expanded, how life evolved, and where it is going. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen....through science.

That's one of them.

DCrazy wrote:

snoopy wrote:A naturalist would say that's a bunch of crap. Science has to assume the non-existence of any outside forces, and strive to find an internal answer to everything.

No, science doesn't have to assume the non-existence of outside forces. Science has to assume NOTHING unless the scientific method provides reasonable, repeatable, and generally-accepted evidence for the existence of something.

The only way macro evolution can fall within acceptance according to that definition would be with the catch-all "generally-accepted." I would contend that it is generally accepted because of the philosophical beliefs that scientists hold, not because of particularly good evidence for it. Thus, it's not a matter of science, but a matter of philosophy.

You mean the entire bible, since it was all written by humans? Or are we going to add another philosophical stipulation that the Bible was once the pure word of God and tarnished by the hand of men?

I'm talking about oral tradition.

See above. Science class isn't as much about teaching kids what to believe as how to go about deciding whether to believe in something. Those who choose to put superstition, oral tradition, scripture, or whatever word of praise or disregard you have for it, above rational explanation and investigation claim to know something they don't, which is diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of science.

You pit beliefs against science, as if they are always mutually exclusive things. Sometimes they may disagree, but my case is that when it comes to origins, our philosophies drive the answers we find among the evidence.

If science only claims to be about observing and experimenting on the order found in the universe, then origins are something that takes too much of a philosophical leap to validly have a home in a science class, because if you don't automatically exclude the possibility of an outside influence, it becomes an equally possible (if not more possible) answer for how life & different species came to be as pure chance.

And who gets to fill this void? The man in the pulpit who speaks from a position of unquestionable authority?

No. Philosophy class, or parents, or extra-curricular clubs, or church, or mosque, or whatever the children's parents want. The point is that I don't want any given philosophy taught to children in a public school setting. Nice straw man, though. I certainly disagree with the pastor of my church at times. I'd say that naturalists & atheists are capable of being just as close-minded as you paint Christians as being.

snoopy wrote:The only way macro evolution can fall within acceptance according to that definition would be with the catch-all "generally-accepted." I would contend that it is generally accepted because of the philosophical beliefs that scientists hold, not because of particularly good evidence for it. Thus, it's not a matter of science, but a matter of philosophy.

If your so-called "macro evolution" were any different from your so-called "micro evolution", then I would point out that repeatable, reasonable, and generally-accepted tests can be done on fossil records, including DNA marker tracing. But since they're not different I refer you to the innumerable experiments done with bacteria in petri dishes, which undergo the same process with a far shorter generational lifespan, so short that we can measure generations in appreciable durations of time. Whereas it would take a lifetime to measure a human generation (and people tend not to be up to the task of research after they die), bacteria's short lifespans make it rather convenient for humans to study the equivalent of aeons in an afternoon.

I think you need to actually learn what "evolution" as a word means.

The fine folks at Merriam-Webster wrote: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Nowhere can you draw a line differing "macro" and "micro" evolution without revealing your need to arbitrarily distinguish between what can be seen with one's eyes and what needs to be derived through other forms of evidence.

You mean the entire bible, since it was all written by humans? Or are we going to add another philosophical stipulation that the Bible was once the pure word of God and tarnished by the hand of men?

I'm talking about oral tradition.

So now the oral tradition is infalliable? Re-read your sentence. You said that "time after time ideas about science that where (sic) driven by religion have been disproved ... (Those ideas where (sic) driven by man's additions to the Bible". You clarified "Bible" to refer to oral tradition. Therefore, you are now making the argument that it's not the oral tradition that's incorrect, just man's additions to it.

You pit beliefs against science, as if they are always mutually exclusive things. Sometimes they may disagree, but my case is that when it comes to origins, our philosophies drive the answers we find among the evidence.

If you take "our" to mean "those of us who have already made up our minds", then I agree. You have just stated that your philosophy drives you to cherry-pick evidence to support of your theories. Those with serious interest in origins of life don't act that way. A key foundation of any scientific research (I hate throwing the word "science" around so much, by the way... almost seems dogmatic! But it's almost the definition of the word) is the willingness to accept and discard theories based on the statistical likelihood of the accuracy of a supporting -- or contradictory! -- finding through experimentation.

No. Philosophy class, or parents, or extra-curricular clubs, or church, or mosque, or whatever the children's parents want. The point is that I don't want any given philosophy taught to children in a public school setting. Nice straw man, though. I certainly disagree with the pastor of my church at times. I'd say that naturalists & atheists are capable of being just as close-minded as you paint Christians as being.

That wasn't a straw man. I was actually bringing the argument back full circle to its beginning -- who is the obvious implied source of "alternative theories" in the now-abandoned book sticker? And never did I paint "Christians" as being closed-minded. (Nice straw man, though.)

Bet51987 wrote:Snoopy, the assumptions are being made by theists, not science. Science makes no assumptions ...

sure we do; we just try to make them reasonable assumptions.

What should not be done is to place by law the idea of an intelligent designer (aka God) as an alternative theory just because something in science is unexplainable. This amounts to nothing more than bringing the supernatural into the classrooms to fill the holes.

I have no issue with bringing the supernatural into a classroom; just not a science classroom.

Each year new tools, like the LHC in particular which I follow, will help scientists close in ever further on those unexplainable portions of the universe and someday, science, not creationism, will answer the biggest questions...Why the universe expanded, how life evolved, and where it is going.

I have grave doubts as to whether science will ever be able to predict the future with certainty. and btw - just because you have an explanation at any given time, does not mean that it is the truth. New data can always lead to restructuring, or even completely discarding, old explanations.

I think that both science and religion can benefit by a healthy dose of modesty.

Kilarin wrote:I'll have to disagree to a certain point. IF the universe had been "created" out of nothing 10,000 years ago, AND, assuming the creator did not deliberately attempt to make the universe look as if it had previously existed, evidence of this creation should be detectable by science.

Hey, if that were the case, sure, but still even living in a 10,000 year old universe created by God would not scientifically justify creationists presuming that the universe was created 10,000 years ago and then hacking observation to reconcile it with their presumption!

Kilarin wrote:The concept of telling the difference between things that were designed, and things that happened by entirely natural processes, is a legitimately scientific one.

Well, even if it were clear that this were the case, demonstrating design would still leave something to be desired concerning demonstrating a divine origin of the universe.

Jeff250 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:The concept of telling the difference between things that were designed, and things that happened by entirely natural processes, is a legitimately scientific one.

Well, even if it were clear that this were the case, demonstrating design would still leave something to be desired concerning demonstrating a divine origin of the universe.

Ah, leading into yet another theory: the "super-intelligent natural creator" (not supernatural, just something powerful which designed the cosmos and/or "seeded" life on Earth).

Jeff250 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:I'll have to disagree to a certain point. IF the universe had been "created" out of nothing 10,000 years ago, AND, assuming the creator did not deliberately attempt to make the universe look as if it had previously existed, evidence of this creation should be detectable by science.

Hey, if that were the case, sure, but still even living in a 10,000 year old universe created by God would not scientifically justify creationists presuming that the universe was created 10,000 years ago and then hacking observation to reconcile it with their presumption!

I don't know about everybody else, but I think the Universe existed looonnng before our World did.

Anybody here think the Universe didn't exist before our world did?

Foil wrote:Ah, leading into yet another theory: the "super-intelligent natural creator" (not supernatural, just something powerful which designed the cosmos and/or "seeded" life on Earth).

A valid and very important point. ID does NOT attempt to identify the designer, it simply attempts to recognize design. IF the naturalists were finally won over by the design argument, it wouldn't change their position at all. They would just come up with a natural explanation for design, and there are plenty.

Then why is ID 99% Christian? I detect bias!

Testiculese wrote:Then why is ID 99% Christian? I detect bias!

Of course, because Christians already believe that there is design in life, so ID is very appealing to them.

Or to some of them, I should say. The ID movement is not generally composed of strict Genesis literalists, and has been denounced as "demonic heresy" by a number of Christians since many of it's proponents support such ideas as common descent and an old age for the earth.

But the fact that ID is appealing to Theists doesn't really have anything to do with the legitimacy of its claims, one way or another. For example, Evolution is appealing to Naturalists, and was rejected by many Christians on that basis alone. But the fact that Philosophical Naturalists like Evolution doesn't say anything about the scientific accuracy/legitimacy of Evolution.

Kilarin wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Then why is ID 99% Christian? I detect bias!

Of course, because Christians already believe that there is design in life, so ID is very appealing to them.

I think the concern (which Bettina and others have voiced before) is that so many Christians have "jumped on the ID bandwagon" that ID is beginning to look like Young-Earth Creationism, at least in the way it's often promoted. Even some members of my family see ID as a fundamentally Christian idea.

DCrazy wrote:Nowhere can you draw a line differing "macro" and "micro" evolution without revealing your need to arbitrarily distinguish between what can be seen with one's eyes and what needs to be derived through other forms of evidence.

You pit beliefs against science, as if they are always mutually exclusive things. Sometimes they may disagree, but my case is that when it comes to origins, our philosophies drive the answers we find among the evidence.

If you take "our" to mean "those of us who have already made up our minds", then I agree. You have just stated that your philosophy drives you to cherry-pick evidence to support of your theories. Those with serious interest in origins of life don't act that way. A key foundation of any scientific research (I hate throwing the word "science" around so much, by the way... almost seems dogmatic! But it's almost the definition of the word) is the willingness to accept and discard theories based on the statistical likelihood of the accuracy of a supporting -- or contradictory! -- finding through experimentation.

While you state a nice ideal, it is hardly the case. Since Darwin originally championed the case for evolutionary origins, both ideas about origins have hit bumps along the way and have been adapted to fit the evidence out there. (Some more efficiently and elegantly than others.) The difficulty with origins is that the body of evidence simply doesn't contain enough information to secure or disprove any theory. Any new information acquired is simply assimilated into the theory, and a new, slightly modified theory (concerning the mechanics) results. So, what makes us (and by us I mean everyone, including you.) hold so tightly to the theory that we adhere to? Philosophy. So, yes, I do mean "those of us who have already made up our minds." I further claim that any adult interested enough in the subject of origins to be studying it will be philosophically motivated, and the majority of the time will simply be looking for a way to justify their philosophical views. No cherry picking is required- the full body of evidence will never be able to conclusively place one philosophy over another.

My point is that seeing something with one's own eyes and deriving things from other forms of evidence are very different things- the evidence is weak enough that it can be interpreted to fit either theory.

About the bacteria experiments- if you know of a study in which an evolution from one species to another occurred, please feel free to cite it. (Yet, even with that, creation would not be unseated- I'm getting to that.)

I'm talking about oral tradition.

So now the oral tradition is infalliable? Re-read your sentence. You said that "time after time ideas about science that where (sic) driven by religion have been disproved ... (Those ideas where (sic) driven by man's additions to the Bible". You clarified "Bible" to refer to oral tradition. Therefore, you are now making the argument that it's not the oral tradition that's incorrect, just man's additions to it.

No, I clarified "additions to the Bible" to mean oral tradition. An example would be this: The Bible says you are to observe the sabbath, and oral tradition adds to that by saying that means you can't go swimming or running, but you can go on a walk. My entire point is that oral tradition is fallible, and that "scientific" theories of olden days where based on people's additions to the Bible, not on what the Bible actually said. This is a tangent, though, along with questioning the Bible's accuracy. My point is that any source that tries to explain origins (especially the the force that drives the mechanism by which the species came about) can be justifiably questioned. Even if survival of the fittest & gradual accumulation of DNA mutations is shown to be the mechanism, there just isn't good enough evidence to determine with any kind of confidence if it was chance that drove those changes or design. (ID makes it its goal to "scientifically" prove that chance could not have been the driving force, but has failed as of yet; and proponents of chance banish the possibility of design from science by pointing to the definition of science.) So, if you must answer the question of origins using the scientific process, (Assuming no supernatural causation is justifiably part of the scientific process- because the answer of supernatural causation doesn't get you anywhere in terms of knowing the present-day physical world.) you are left with the answer that it all happened by chance- but your answer isn't a scientifically pertanant one- it's a philosophically pertanant one.

That wasn't a straw man. I was actually bringing the argument back full circle to its beginning -- who is the obvious implied source of "alternative theories" in the now-abandoned book sticker? And never did I paint "Christians" as being closed-minded. (Nice straw man, though.)

I'm not asking for alternative theories. I'm asking that origins be recognized as a philosophical topic, not a scientific one- and that no theories concerning origins be presented in the science class room. It suffices to state that evolution is a mechanism operating in the universe, and to demonstrate examples from known history. The question of how man came to be on the earth is a philosophical one and should be taught in philosophy.

Kilarin,

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that other comments made are incorrect. The "appearance of age" argument is a subjective one, and neither side has a theological hangup, so far as I'm concerned.

Foil wrote:I think the concern (which Bettina and others have voiced before) is that so many Christians have "jumped on the ID bandwagon" that ID is beginning to look like Young-Earth Creationism

There are, of course, Christians who have jumped on the ID bandwagon just as a way to get God back into the public schools. There are also many Philosophical Naturalists who push Evolution because they think it proves we don't need God. To quote Dawkins, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Both ID and Evolution have philosophical implications, and often attract people because of those implications instead of the scientific evidence. But the motivations of the "groupies" of either have nothing to do with the validity of the science of either.

One of the main problems with Young Earth Creationism as a science is that it assumes the result, and then goes looking for evidence to support that result. Any evidence to the contrary is rejected or explained away with a "just so" story. This is NOT a good way to do science.

Intelligent Design is fundamentally different. ID says that under certain circumstances, it is scientifically possible to identify design. ID limits itself to this very narrow field.

Please note that this is "recognize DESIGN", not "identify a DESIGNER". Recognizing that "this was designed by an intelligent agent" is a MUCH simpler question than attempting to identify who the designer was. You can recognize design without making any assumptions whatsoever about the designer other than that they were intelligent. For example, stating that a particular rock was obviously altered by an intelligent agent can often be proved. Attempting to prove exactly who that intelligent agent was is a completely different, and usually unanswerable, question.

The ID backers would do themselves a big favor if they would back off of biology for a bit. The Naturalists are as closed minded as the Young Earth Creationist in that field and there is just too much emotional and political baggage being thrown around, which gets in the way of good science. ID needs to prove itself in other less controversial arenas, and then move back into the very rich field of biology.

Obviously, I tend to be an evolutionist. However, I would acknowledge that I often find things in nature that are just strange and difficult to explain. My personal favorite are the leaf insects that look uncannily like dead leaves - complete with tattered edges and rotten holes. Eh, I'm sure someone can muster an evolutionary reason for it, but there are times when I think it all comes together too perfectly.

While I think evolution must be taught as part of any serious science curriculum, I'm not against creationalism being taught as part of a larger discourse on religions of the world. Religion still plays a major role in the politics and issues of this world that it behooves scholars in international affairs to study and understand it.

Kilarin wrote:

Foil wrote:Ah, leading into yet another theory: the "super-intelligent natural creator" (not supernatural, just something powerful which designed the cosmos and/or "seeded" life on Earth).

A valid and very important point. ID does NOT attempt to identify the designer, it simply attempts to recognize design. IF the naturalists were finally won over by the design argument, it wouldn't change their position at all. They would just come up with a natural explanation for design, and there are plenty.

Kilarin, I'm surprised at you. Intelligent Design is God wearing an overcoat and dark glasses. Its as plain as day.

Bettina

Kilarin wrote:You can recognize design without making any assumptions whatsoever about the designer other than that they were intelligent.

This is because we cannot conceive of intelligence without conceiving of the human incarnation of it. IMO, this was the great error of Star Trek, not that all the aliens looked like humans except for furrowed brows, but that they all thought like humans and experienced the world like humans. They all experienced the world through concepts like space and time, using methods that make math and language as we know it first possible. I can't remember who said it or the exact quote, but it was something to the effect of, "Broadcasting the prime numbers as a means to communicate with intelligent life is as good as asking them if they have an Eiffel Tower."

Unbelievably, some people think that they know the mind of God as well!

Snoopy wrote:proponents of chance banish the possibility of design from science by pointing to the definition of science

I don't think you even need to appeal to a definition of science (something like that science excludes the supernatural, since this is what I assume you're alluding to). If God and his actions were subject to empirical study in themselves, it's quite clear that they aren't in this universe. As the theists say, God works in mysterious ways. Come up with a plausible, falsifiable, reliable, and enlightening theory about what God is or what he will regularly do, and then I think we can discuss whether or not that is science.

Bettina wrote:Kilarin, I'm surprised at you.

After all the long and repetetitive ID discussions we've had, my position still surprises you?

Bettina wrote:Intelligent Design is God wearing an overcoat and dark glasses. Its as plain as day.

Have you read either Behe or Dembski? No, no, I don't mean have you just listened to the debunkers, I'm asking if you've actually read any of their own work?

Seriously, I know you've got a heavy emotional stake in this issue, but try to set that aside for a moment and examine their arguments. Their work is not without flaws, but it IS a legitimate attempt to quantify methods for detecting design.

As for the "God in Dark Glasses" argument. Take the Von Daniken or Authur C Clark theories that Aliens meddled with the formation of life here on this earth. IF this were true, they would have probably left evidence of design behind. The search for that evidence would certainly be legitimate science. Of course, you object, "but that's not what the ID people believe!". But this just shows that your main problem with ID is not with the science, but with the implications of the results. Attacking ID on those grounds is no more legitimate than the scopes trial attacking Evolution because they didn't like the implications.

Jeff250 wrote:This is because we cannot conceive of intelligence without conceiving of the human incarnation of it.

Intelligence can design things that can't be distinguished from chance or natural processes. Just look at the works of Cage or Pollock. If the intelligence of the designer was so different from ours that we had NOTHING in common, their designs might be undetectable. ID only claims to be able to recognize design in certain very restricted cases, not in every case, or even in the majority of cases.

I'm surprised then that ID'ists don't embrace human psychology as the driving science behind ID, considering how successful their appeals to ignorance have been so far. Detecting human (or human-like) design has potential to be a legitimate science. (Of course, of what use would ID then be to the theists...)