To those with an open mind,
I saddens me, an agnostic, that a theory which deserves serious
attention, has been highjacked by religious fundamentalists who support
creationism. So serious is this, that in the issue dated October 8 2005
'New Scientist' contained a special report, 'The end of enlightenment'
Respected scientists have been drawn into a web of black or white.
Evolution or God. Evolution has a scientific basis, to a point.
Darwins evolutionary theory did not explain fully, or answer, many
relevent questions.
Belief in a God is based on faith and dogma, with no science to support it.
I sincerely hope I have not offended many here of religious persuasion.
My point is, and was, isn't it time now for us to grow up? An be together?
Nokton.

Nokton, I share the agnostic view and too, am dismayed by the binary choices of either believing in evolution or divine creation.

The universe, from quarks to galaxy clusters, appears to be "intelligently" ordered. At the very least, if matter can self-organize according to "natural" laws, a strict evolutionist cannot answer: Why does it behave that way?

Moreover, our accessible knowledge of the universe runs into a brick wall at the Big Bang, if indeed that is how the physical universe came into being. The origin of the Big Bang seems forever to be cloaked in mystery. Or, if the universe always existed, then what was the origin?

However, if the origin of the universe was at the hand of a "creator," that too will remain outside the ability of science to confirm.

Personally, I like mystery. It seems to unsettle others.

Thanx Deuces for your well reasoned response to my thread.
Just to update you, if I may take the liberty, there is a new theory
of the origin of the Big Bang, brane theory. Much of what you write
I feel comes from an analytical mind.
Nokton.

What theory are you referring to? Based on your statement that it's a theory that requires "serious attention" it certainly can't be ID ("intelligent design"), which doesn't qualify as a theory since there is no objective evidence to support it. It might possibily be considered a hypothesis, but once again runs aground when the set of objective evidence required for a working hypothesis is found to be absent.

Remember, this is a science board. Use of faith and dogma to support a "theory" or "hypothesis" is inappropriate. Such approaches belong on a different, non-scientific bulletin board.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

To be fair: the debate is only polarised in the minds of the creationists themselves, since there are many scientists (who know evolution is as much a fact as gravity is) that believe in (a) God(s).

The rest, however, still stays the same: ID is not a scientific theory, hence it does not belong in science-class. It's not God vs science. It's bad science vs science, and it seems that for some creationists, the only way to get it in science is to make those sitting on the fence believe that it's either "evolution or God".

I agree. I brought as open a mind as possible to a recent research of "creation science" websites. The main topics I examined were the bodies of "evidence" that support a young Earth and a world-wide flood. Oh my. The result of experiement and information-gathering never is in doubt. Any fact may be adjusted, even if that means suspending natural law (He-who-can't-be-named being able to do that sort of thing).

Very bad subjective science.

You are right. The creationists polarize the argument, create a binary choice, and that is dishonest. Many - most? - who believe in He-that-can't-be-named see the miracle of life, however it arrived and diversified, of natural processes, the mystery of matter, energy, forces and time.

Creationists deny that science can endorse the miracle we call the universe and life on planet Earth. They deny that how their very own He-who-can't-be-named operates cannot be revealed through good science.

That is a strong indictment, and concurrently, it is absolutely incorrect.

One of those difaculties with this ID idea is that who and what built a universe. Where were thay when they did this and where did they come from.
Please do not make any attempt to answer what might look like a question. Its not.

Moved from Q&A to General Science.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yes, many people in the media do like to paint things as black and white when they're not quite thus.

Here's a thought: in the Katzmiller vs. Dover school board trial, a Christian judge ruled against ID proponents. It doesn't get much greyer than that.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Before the trial, some ID proponents were very happy to have a Bush-appointee, friend of Rick Santorum and Tom Ridge presiding over the case. Now that he's decided against them, he is of course an "activist judge" with "delusions of grandeur."

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Frankly, I see Intelligent Design as a cop-out.

Why bother learning anything when you can just claim that ,God, gods, aliens, lizard people, pizza delivery personnel, etc just manufactured everything? It's just lazy thinking in my book.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Ultimate origin, Metricyard. The idea that intelligences beyond ours in ways we cannot imagine. The reality, that from a four-dimensional point of view, mystery is infinite.

Does that mean we then, cop-out, leaving the pursuit of the above alone, saying some God, gods, aliens, lizard people, and pizza delivery personnel did it and that's that?

No, for that would be a cop-out.

Please elaborate. I have not clue what any of this means.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

It's quite possible that there are lots of civilizations that are far more advanced than we are in the universe. Until they come knocking on our door, though, we can only speculate.
Can't see why this would be considered worthy of scientific teaching though.

But that is what ID basically is. From what I've seen and read about intelligent design, that's about all you get. Claim something is too complex to naturally occur and show no evidence to the contrary, just claims of an intelligent designer must have done it. I don't see how anything can be accomplished by trying to turn it into a scientific endeavour.

Again, no scientific value or basis whatsoever. I keep hearing the claims that we have to have an open mind, but ID does just the opposite. It forces you to except an intelligent being without any proof, or any need for proof. That's not science, that's religion.

No one is claiming that ID shouldn't be discussed. But ID belongs in the realm of theology, not science.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Mak, answer you. and all you represent.
I am an agnostic, I have no religion, no God. But am of science.
OK Mak, tell me you understand the evolution of the feather. Please
explain it to me in evolutionary terms, or shut up about faith and dogma,
and explain where YOU are coming from.
Nokton.

I am not promoting ID as its proponents do, as you can note from my post. I am saying that dismissing it, closing one's mind to it, is treachery to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, as evolutionists cannot prove "blind evolution" anymore than ID proponents can prove divine creation. Thus, to ensure that no observations are filtered through preconceptions, an open mind is a good guide.

Things are not that simple. It's a tired analogy, but a person with a flashlight would have been considered a "god" by people in times past. Supernatural causes would have been assigned to an explainable, according to natural law, device held by a living being.

What people call ID may be a similar resort to supernatural causes when one isn't required. Or, they may be dead on. Either way, a scientist, a person wanting to better understand what reality is, is obliged to remain open to evidence unfiltered by preconception.

Explaining the supernatural always has been the domain of science. When science bumps into something supernatural that it cannot explain, it must remain open to the possibility of the reality of the supernatural.

paul-wayne

Science as yet has not identified ultimate origins.

The idea that intelliegences greater than ours may exist follows a certain logic.

We assume that we may uncover all we need to know through the four-dimensional point of view, through the mind and the senses. That is an unverifiable assumption.

I'm just saying, staying open-minded in the pursuit of knowledge is the surest way to expand one's awareness and understanding of what is real and what is not, which is the goal of every scientist and scientific observer.

Turning "science" into an all-knowing "religion" is an exercise human beings have shown a propensity to do, historically and presently.

I'm a very open minded person, at leat I'd like to think I am
No one is insisting that ID can't be taught, it just shouldn't be taught as a scientific subject. Science involves experiments and/or observations. ID doesn't fall into any science catagory. If you can provide something that ID can fit into, as far as science goes, I'm all ears.

Lets compare theories:

evolution theory has fossils from a whole assortment of dinosaurs, plants and animals, geological data, archaeological data, Paleontology and more resently dna evidence.

ID has a claim that some things are too complex, so it must have been 'designed'.

So I ask you, what exactly would you say to convince me that may prove that ID has a place in scientific discussion, other than the fact I have a closed mind and ground in the mundain realm of science?

Time travel may well happen in the future, even if I did manage someday to travel back in time and drive the natives mad with a music video of Micheal Jackson, it still does nothing to prove or help in the discussion of ID.

So are we saying that the Ghost of Christmas past is responsible for ID? How do you prove that? Not that the supernatural can't exist. Unfortunately, unless Elvis gives a live interview on NightLine sometime soon, you aren't going to convice anyone, open minded or not.

Ghostbusters was a fictional movie, not a documentary


edit -- spelling

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Nokton, you've been around long enough to know the rules. I am reading what you've written as though you're kind of irritated right now. That does not give you license to tell someone to 'shut up'. These are very mild fighting words, but they are outside of polite decorum. I am asking you to volunteer to not post in this thread again for at least twelve hours, in hopes that you will have a chance to cool off before this gets out of hand.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Feathers evolved as an insulator as some dinosaurs evolved toward exothermia (warm bloodedness).

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Can we be clear? I do not advocate nor have advocated teaching ID in a classroom setting as science, and when you argue that point, you're arguing with yourself or someone else, not me.

Nothing, for I've never advocated that ID has a place in scientific discussion. However, I am saying that ID may be possible, and to deride it at every opportunity is evidence of a mind closed on the subject. When one tolerates blindly or righteously closing one's mind on one subject, I have to wonder, has that person closed his or her mind on other issues without indisputable evidence supporting that decision?

All I'm arguing for is keeping one's mind accessible to new evidence, even when that evidence runs contrary to one's current opinions, nothing more or less.

Indeed.

Please do not mistake my stating an opinion for trying to convince anyone of anything. However, if I saw an interview with Elvis on NightLine it would seem not to bear on the validity of ID, or blind evolution. Perhaps the supernatural, but why Elvis? Jesus, maybe, or Lord Krishna, but not Elvis...

And this is why evolution is a science, because it not only offers explanations, it generates testable hypotheses. We are led to hypothesize that feathers must have appeared gradually, that they must have served a purpose even for creatures that could not fly. We then confront the data, and at first little may exist, but over time we assemble more and more until ultimately the hypothesis is testable. A classic example is the prediction by evolution that fossils must exist somewhere that show a link from sea animals to land animals. Those fossils were only recently found in China. Predictions made, hypotheses tested, that's science at work. ID has no such track record, it is simply the desire to see the scientific approach fail to arrive at a workable explanation so that magical explanations may fill the gap.

from Flying Dueces

You may be right, ID may be the answer.
If you can show me the proof, I may change my mind and think it's possible too.
Ergo, I have an open mind to new ideas, but I am closed to ID without proof.

This is the heart of the matter. Discussing ID is one thing, proving it is another. Is it considered being closed minded because we ask for evidence of ID?

Who decides who or what this Intelligent designer is? Some say it's God(s), others say it 's an advanced alien race, others say supernatural, and still others believe in a wheat based multi armed monster. The list goes on and on.

Is a person really open minded if a person believes in an advanced alien race, but not a god or gods created the worlds, or vice-versa? Without any proof for any of the options, an open mind can only go so far. Could there be an intelligent designer? Maybe, but until there is a way to test or observe such intelligence, I'll stick to the sciences.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Metricyard, take the points you make above, but offer this. You ask for proof. How many scientific theories have conclusive proof? Few, yet the
exploration of the concept of
the idea has lead to much greater understanding.
We live in a universe only now we are beginning to grasp the knowledge of.
I would make the point, as a concept, that sentient life could be what the
universe is really about. Metricyard, has quantum theory been 'understood'
yet? Can you test ond observe it? No, not as a proof, but one knows of it.
I make my point now, we have still much to learn, and to assume we have
the intellect to understand everything, denies who we are at this time in
our development.
Nokton.

Intelligent Design fails even as a counter to the theory of evolution, because it ignores the question "Where did the designer come from?". Did the designer evolve? Was the designer designed? In the latter case, is it designers all the way up?

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Let's not forget that evolution has come a long way since Darwin first proposed it, not the least of which was the modern synthesis with genetics.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Emphasis mine.

This is one of the problems with ID. It's set up so that everything we don't currently have an answer to becomes "The designer just designed it that way," thereby shutting down any further inquiry.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Not only that, it begs the question that there even was a designer in the first place, based on, "Well, it seems to me that it's too complex not to be designed."

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!