That is nonsens.

That's just BS rhetoric. Where the hell did this William Provine pull that from. Inescapeable conclusions??? The concept of evolution does none of those things... not one.

BTW: I already mentioned evolution is a proven process which can be observed. End of argument.

You mean you are not even a creationist? You believe in evolution but not as it would therefore apply to humans. Bah! Is that how the Bible describes it?

I at least respect the integrity of strict new earth creationists - it's what it says in the bible, no variation. But your kind of thing..?

Why don't you spell out what you think happened, more or less when, and how and why. Then we'll all take a look. Maybe you are right, you know. That's the way it works. Lay your theory out in one post (if it will fit) in a logical and clear presentation and let everyone test it.

But let's not re-hash ID - you are wrong about the rising acceptance of ID among scientists and naming a handful of people as some kind of proof. A dozen names out of millions doesn't prove much. Among the science community ID has been thoroughly and fatally discredited.

As for rising creationism in Europe, yes, it's an issue but i think much less of one than in the US. But i do care much more about what happens in Europe than in the US, for sure, and I do believe that "our creationists" follow American creationists' lead, or rather perceived success. In this regard what happens in the US does have consequences in Europe. But that muslims wish to jump on this bandwagon troubles me not in the slightest. In fact I am amused at the possibility of an axis of fundamentalism some way down the road, even if in reality it's no laughing matter.

I think that stem cell research is a red herring. It's likely that there will be ways around the problem within a few years. And besides, even if there isn't a way around, this just gives a comparative advantage to european science and pharmaceutical companies. Why should that trouble me?

:rotfl:
Like that'll ever happen.

It sure sounded final, though :)

Did you take the time to see who William Provine is? From your post I'd assume not. Let me provide you with a URL: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/provine/provineworks.html
It's interesting to note that a man so distinguished as Provine would make such an observation as that I have posted. Especially since the man is an atheist and a staunch opponent of intelligent design! Get the drift? He's a supporter of Evolution Theory and STILL has made the previously posted points! Unless you operate at the same educated and intellectual level as Dr. Provine, I can scarcely consider your opinion of his conclusions "BS rhetoric".

Not quite...;)

Why? Let's consider the points:
1. Darwin asserts that life is a result of random chance coupled with natural selection to perpetuate a species. Random chance in that atomic elements somehow combined to form the building blocks of life, while life itself, to quote Darwin, "arose in some small, warm pool of water". Pretty vague a beginning for Man. Then natual selection takes over to continue desirable traits and afford enough diversity to create all the phyla we have today. No need for God when these two principal forces are at work.
2. If God doesn't exist, then the whole scriptural story of the Resurrection (or the Bible itself for that matter) didn't happen and Jesus was a fraud and didn't raise from the dead. John 3:16 is meaningless.
3. Without God, there is no right or wrong. We can make up our morals as we go and the basis for all we believe is destroyed. Atrocities like torturing children and raping women would be just fine if society deemed it so. (BTW, ask yourself if these things are right or wrong, how you know the difference and from whence you learned it.)
4. We're born, we live, we die. Period. Life has no higher meaning than that we can create for ourselves in our finite meaningless lives. We're just a bunch of complicated monkeys.
5. The concept of free will becomes invalid. Your life choices all lead to the same end. Death and finality.

Evidently you haven't read my previous posts too well. And what, labeling me a "Creationist" must certainly conjure up some preconceived notions regarding my intelligence and personality. Probably in the negative... Do you find it difficult to accept that I can reconcile aspects of evolution with faith in God? Guess it just doesn't fit because I'm a "Creationist"... and hence, stupid or narrow-minded... or worse, blindly, unquestioningly faithful... :lol:

If I had all the answers then I would be God, but I don't so I'm not. Do you have all the answers and would you care to substantiate and share them? I'm open-minded enough to consider your point of view.

But Intelligent Design is integral with creation. Does the thought of having been designed bother you? If you consider yourself just a "complicated monkey" then so be it. Have a nice life.

But I've at least substantiated my point to a degree, and a few names out of "millions" are something, while you, on the other hand, have done nothing but emptily refuted it.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
The list which started with 100 prominent scientists just a few years ago, has now risen to over 700. Hmm, seems to be a trend here... There is a link on the page to a .pdf containing the names of those who have signed.

You might take note that this list contains some of the most notable names for almost all fields of science. BTW, I challenge you to provide any substatiation for your "discredited" statement. Certainly, as sure as your are about your information in this regards, providing a few credible links shouldn't be hard. Right?

Two more quotes:
Quite interesting statements from a "complex monkey" methinks... ;)

errm..ok...whatever dude. Really I have no problem with people trying to reconcile their beliefs and the scientific developments. I see it all the time with scientists who are also religious. In fact i think it's somehting that has to happen, but how this reconciliation occurs is important. ID is not it, i'm afraid, as the ID drive on schools was really an assault on science, not an attempt to reconcile.

Don't be silly. Although if you are now claiming you don't have a theory, I'll accept that. As for my theory why don't we just say it is the theory of evolution.


It doesn't really bother me, no, I just don't believe it. More to the point, why does it bother you so much to think that you did evolve through random mutation?

Incidentally, as an IDer do you not also believe monkeys are intelligently designed?


Yes i looked at that. I know a lot of MD's and Phds, and I'm afraid the 700 does not make a drop in the ocean. Frequently there are 700 in the same room as me, and i talk to them. I can tell you from first hand experience, you are not infallible once you have a phd or md, and nor do you all become experts in every field. Look how many phd's and highly educated people are in the 911 truth movement for an example.

this is not to say i hold phd's in low regard. the opposite is in fact the case, and they are a worthy thing to aspire to.

Surely you jest. Very droll. Otherwise you couldn't possibly make out you haven't heard any of the vast amount of literature on the matter, or even that well known court case.

why not try a google search on "debunking ID" and another on "ID and creationism" and tell me when you've finished reading it all.

OK, good luck and nice talking to you, I'm outta here.

Joe

C'mon refute me! Show a little of that randomly created mass of grey matter!

To begin with, I never stated I had a theory, only that I don't accept all of what Darwinism extolls as fact. Secondly, I was asked if I had all the answers and I answered honestly that I don't. You, on the other hand simply fell back on the works of Darwin, calling it "your theory". Fine, if not uncreative.


Because I don't believe my life is meaningless and also that science is proving more and more that life is not random. The discipline of mathematics is proving that the chances of life arising from "random events" is so incredibly, astronomically high, as to be virtually impossible.

Monkeys are made from the same organic compounds as humans.

Ah yes, the world is just full of Ph.Ds isn't it? I'm sorry but I can't equate the 911 truth movement with the current topic. Simply not in the same scope.

As long as they don't confess an interest in Intelligent Design by your definition.


I've read quite a bit of the material refuting Darwinism and Creationist dogma. I simply asked you to provide some resources as a demonstration that you had some serious committment to the conversation besides your rhetoric, and also to provide other readers of this thread with substantiation of your point of view.

I hope your smug rejoiner of "tell me when you've finished reading it" somehow satisfies your self image.

But why does it have to be considered "religious"? Why can't people see Intelligent Design as the fulfillment of one the basic tenets of science, "The search for Truth"?

What amazes me, the more I read, study and learn is this, the scientific community and the pubic in general are more willing to accept the highly theoretical hypothesis given forth under such exotic disciplines as quantum physics and the realms of imaginary numbers, than they are to look around and say, "Ya know, looks like there's an Intelligent Design to this thing called the Universe."

Apply the Kalam Cosmological Arguments, Occams Razor and the Irreducibility of Complex Systems and see where it leads!

You seem to be an enquiring person, Deep Iron, and I hope that you find a way to reconcile this unwanted schism in modern life. And if you do, i hope you publish it.

In the meantime, please try to understand why ID fails. It fails because it tries to shoehorn a poorly developed theory into the scientific framework, where it just does not fit because of serious inadequacies of methodology and epistemology. Citing more instances won't change this. You can get away with it, maybe, if you are talking about a new and poorly understand scientific field, but evolution is one of the oldest and best understood fields, so simple and powerful that it can be summed up in less than a sentence.

Both science and christianity are enormously important aspects of western tradition and society, and any genuine and lasting reconciliation over these really quite severe differences cannot be gained by forcing either party to accept what cannot be accepted. Be it by triviliasing the meaning and methods of the other side or trying to drastically alter it's framework. All that happens in these cases is argument, with neither side moving an inch and both sides claiming victory.

I have no idea what form such a reconciliation would take, and I'm not a religious enough person to make suggestions on the matter. However it would be, it would require a profound understanding and respect for both science and religion.

Thats not correct DeepIron. The Coccyx or tail bones in a human are an example vestigiality. Basically its a left over from our distant ancestors who had tails. Infact Human embryos have quite prominent tails for a short time and there are recorded cases in medical history of people whose tail was not absorbed back into the body and remained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx

http://backandneck.about.com/od/c/g/coccyx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail#human_tails

But why are human tails and other exaples of vestigiality siginifcant? Because they are visible evidence of evolution. Why would god or an 'Intelligent designer' bother adding elements that serve no purpose?

Vestigiality can be found in other animals to. Some snakes have vestigial limbs and pelvis. Whales have vestigial hind legs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

For an example of natural selection just google 'Peppered Moth'.

@MrBeast: There have been 28 documented examples of vestigial tails since the late 1880's. 28 out of millions and millions. Why are there no muscles evident in these tails? One might decry, "Their vestigial! The muscles are gone!" If we can have the protruding flap of skin, why then not some muscle as well if indeed they are tails? On the other hand, why are some chldren born with webbed toes? Or polydactylism? Do we point to these and cry, "He's decended from a Duck!" or She's obviously got bat blood in her!". No we chalk these up to "birth defects" and blame the environment or a genetic aberrration of sorts.

No, like all things Darwinist or Creationist, each camp will take up its banner and champion its cause... You agree with that which makes sense to you, I'll do the same. ;)

Well, at least you and I won't reconcile this. I simply do not agree with your summation regarding the irreconcilable differences of science and religion. Indeed, while you've said time and again, that ID is a "poorly developed theory", you've failed to provide any other framework or alternative other than Darwinism and by inference, Random Chance. Ok, that's fairly safe and mainstream thinking for our times.

I've attempted to post some examples of the scientific community's support of theories of Intelligent Design. To be frank, I've barely scratched the surface of the multitude of instances where science and religion have met and have found a common ground of sorts to satisfy both sides.

Allow me to site a few other examples as an exercise for the reader. Please note these are all scientific disciplines.
1. Ancient Literature. The Bible is the most well supported of all ancient documents with over 5000 of the original Greek manuscripts in existence today. The next runner up is Homer's Illiad, with 650. From a purely numeric basis, it's interesting that we accept the Illiad more readily for its authenticity than we do the Bible.
2. Modern Archeology. Archeologists have been uncovering ancient sites mentioned in the Bible for decades. Along with these sites, archeologists have also discovered ancient writings and objects that support scriptural writings.
3. Cosmology. Cosmologists have discovered the incredble precision to which the Universe operates. This is called "Fine Tuning". Change the attractive force of gravity, or the Cosmological Constant but by an incredibly infitestimal amount, and the Universe would not exist. Hence, life would not exist.
4. Astronomy. Astronomers have found that the Earth enjoys a very unique place in the Universe. From our placement in the Milky Way, to the size of our Moon, the type of Sun we have and the placement of other planets in our Solar System, all work in concert to support life. The mathematical probablities alone are staggering.
5. Biology. Biologists have formulated the theory of Irreductable Complexity. Cellular life is highly dependent upon the synchronized workings of a multitude of structures and cellular processes. Remove but one, and the cell dies. The probablility that atomic elements could combine to produce molecules, then amino acids, then proteins, then more complex life oriented structures is astronomically remote. Even if you could get the structures built, the odds that all the necessary structures and chemical processes needed to form even the simplist cell would work in concert together is even more unlikely.
6. Biology. DNA. There has been NO scientific theory that has fully satisfied or explained the organizational structure of DNA. Without DNA, no life. It seems most incredible, that a single strand of DNA contains the blueprints or code for all forms of life on Earth. The question is, where did the blueprint come from in the first place? Preceeding theories such as Random Chance, Natural Selection, Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering have all fallen short.
7. Psychology. The Mind. We are more than just a brain and a body.

There are many, many more examples to be found if one wishes to do the research.

Ok, that's it for me. Have a good one.:up:

Have you? I mst say that you seem to see every answer that science cannot giove on grounds of its current knoweldge - you seem to take as evidence that religion must be right. but that is mismatching categories only - it is neither logical, nor reasonable to do so.

That latter remark - is no argment in suport of your suggestions.

so what? Must it be taken literally for that reason? Must it be taken out of the context of past culture, past knoweldge levels and past thinking?

So what? they also have uncovcered places that got mentioned in other historic reports different from the bible. they also uncovered places that were not mentione din any known historic document.

So what? BTW, "fine tuning" is debated currently, and that the universe runs "precisely" needs the assumption that there is a standard to which the ammount of precison is to be judged. the only thing I would agree on is that a lot of variables are kept in a precious balance tgo enable life as we know it oin this planet. We know nothing about how many or how few other worlds comparable tomour own are there. And we know nothing about very different kinds of life out there. We only assume that in face of the monumental size of the universe as we understand it we probbaly are not the only ones out there, and we have come up with many different probability models for that. But all that does not chnage the fact that we do not know for sure. we play games.

Yes they are, but see above. In how far does this make theistic religious conclusions and the reports of the bible a must?


Every higher level of compelxity does not wipe out the former, lower levels of compelxity, but includes them and by going beyond them: transcends them. If you remove essential ingredients of a given level of compelxity, the system degenerates to the next lower complexity level. In how far is there an argument in favour of theistic relgion, and the bible?

That says you. See several of my postings above. theories are theories, not more, not less. The degree to which they may be valid or invalid - is no margument pro bible or theistic religions.

I'm the first one to agree. But that is no argument in favour of a theistic deity, or the way the bible sees it.

By saying that science and religion - as you seem to understand it - have met a common ground and that sciences have given support to ideas of intelligent design, you reveal that you stick to the creationistic self-description of what creation scinece and standards are. but I must tell you that these standards are rejected from the science branches of academical science business, and do not match the quality standards scienctists sually do agree upon. Since some years creationists have started to try giving themselves a cover of respectability by trying to describe themselves as being scientific, like Scientology tries to make itself respectable by claiming to be a religion. the only proböem is that creationist science and academcials cience by far cannot be compared in the standards of methods, and reasoning. It is pseudo-science, and also gives the impression of great naivety. I must say that I find your arguments unconvincing, and logically not conclusive. Many of your conclusions are early shots and by scientific and logical standard: not permissible/valid.

;)

P.S. I had this link in my arcive folder. the story I ghave told before, but the opportunity is good enough:
http://jerseyspeaks.wordpress.com/20...eation-debate/

Say what you want - that is what I would call pragmatic thinking. :lol:

Well, there's an interesting aspect of free will at work here. The choice to believe as one wishes to believe and for whatever reasons. Whether my arguments or the arguments of those much more learned than I are "persuasive" or 'logical", is not the most cogent aspect of this thread. Anyone, with a little application of grey matter can shoot holes through just about any hypothesis, theory or opinion, whether "religous" or secular.

Let me put the issue in this personal perspective, I believe in an Intelligent Creator. So far, there has been no satisfactory HUMAN explaination for the Universe and my role in it. Time and time again, it's "Science will uncover the Ultimate Truth... later." In this regard, author Douglas Adams' answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, encapulated in the number '42', might just as well apply as any other human rationale.

On the other hand, I believe many Western Christian religions also miss the mark in some way. Jesus taught no theology in his ministry. He said plain and openly what was required of Man to achieve salvation and eternal life. All in all, the Bible is pretty direct stuff. Read the Sermon on the Mount some time and compare it against the latest, greatest theory(s) that Man has concocted. I'll take the Sermon, thank you very much. Why? Because it makes sense and application to my life RIGHT NOW. I don't have to struggle with esoteric number systems or highly speculative quantum physics to use what I read today.

But that doesn't mean I can't listen and consider other opinions. Even Christ said we should "test our faith daily". The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

Seems the same for those who champion a more secular (for lack of a better term) point of view too. ;)

All in all, through my doubts, my research and reading, for myself, the Cross and the Resurrection are far better bets than any Buddhist pragmatism, New Age mysticism or flawed human explainations. Works for me. :up:

Not true with regard to scientists knowing what they are doing: sciences is about varifying or falsifying theories by a method of testing and observation.

More technically, a theory usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", " an unproved assumption", "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" (mirriam webster online dictionary, choosing the scientific relevant aspects only).

And the National Academy of Sciences says in it's forword to "Science and Creationism" :

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these
words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence.
Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation,
experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested
hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific

theories we have."

they also define at the same location:

"Fact:

In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is

accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be
modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis:

A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the

deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect,
the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law:

A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

In the quest for understanding, science involves a great deal of careful observation that eventually produces

an elaborate written description of the natural world. Scientists communicate their findings and conclusions to
other scientists through publications, talks at conferences, hallway conversations, and many other means. Other
scientists then test those ideas and build on preexisting work. In this way, the accuracy and sophistication of
descriptions of the natural world tend to increase with time, as subsequent generations of scientists correct and
extend the work done by their predecessors.
Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.
Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by
scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet many scientific

explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."

Science searches progress by trial and error. It does not hope to find the penultimate truth, and it cannot. Some foolish scientists nevertheless maybe fall for that temptation, though. but they miss the above principles then.

You are illogical here. Religion is believing, science is, trial and error, observation and conclsuion. Religion is belief indeed. you have made a choice, you say you belief in an intelligent creator. But you do not want to be hold responsible for the choice you made..?. By your choice, you already have filtered out what is possible in explanation and what not: you must not know anymore, and must not explain accoprding to standards of reason or science or logic - for you have choosen to believe. Believing and reason do not go well together. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

Works for you? I fear you need to wait until you are dead to see if it works for you, or not. That way, you can almost skip your life, which may explain christians' obessive orientation towards death. Question then is, in your thinking: why have I been created, then? Just in order to die when asking too many question about poison arrows? That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.)

P.S. You also mentioned free will. That is paradox, because when you choose to believe, you do not act by free will anymore: you submit,and you make your decisions in the basis of your dogma formed by what you believe. A free will not to act by free will anymore?