[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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.

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.

In parting let me leave a few other examples as an exercise for the reader. Please note these are all scientific disciplines.

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

1. Ancient Litrature. The Bible is the most well supported of all ancient documents with over 5000 of the Greek manuscripts in existence today. The next runner up is Homer's Illiad, with 650.

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?

2. Modern Archeology. Archeologists have been uncovering ancient sites mentioned in the Bible for decades.

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.

3. Cosmology. Cosmologists have discovered the incredble precision to which the Universe operates. This is called "Fine Tuning".

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

6. Biology. DNA. There has been NO scientific theory that has fully satisfied or explained the organizational structure of DNA. Without DNA, no life. Preceeding theories such as Random Chance, Natural Selection, Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering have all fallen short.

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.

7. Psychology. The Mind. We are more than just a brain and a body.

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/

The Buddha compares the question of the origin of life to the parable of the poisonous arrow.

A man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he asks several questions.
Who shot it? (Thus, the arguing the existence of God).
Where the arrow come from? (Where the universe and/or God came from?)
Why did that person shoot it? (Why did God create the universe), etc.
If the doctor keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers.
Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment).

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