Post Reply
Page 27 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27
Switch to Forum Live View Spirituality in the Scientific World
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 6:48PM #261
Faustus5
Posts: 2,022

Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:37PM, Ed.W wrote:

We all do know who the zealots are.


Yep, that would be fools who reject one of the most solidly confirmed models in science in favor of stuff made up by pre-scientific tribesmen. Most def.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 7:10PM #262
Blü
Posts: 24,672

Ed


We all do know who the zealots are.


You surprise me when you offer such a zealous defense of superstition - or at least superstition as crude as the example you describe.


You don't have to be a Christian to get the placebo effect.


You don't have to be a Christian to have your morale improved by attention.


These things work, to whatever extent they're going to work, for any faith or none.  It's worth saying so out loud.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 10:52AM #263
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

NJ


Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:38PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:59PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:23PM, newsjunkie wrote:

A judge is not needed to show that ID is unscientific, or at best pseudoscience. The judge is needed to keep religious school board members from forcing their religion on schoolchildren in the US.


On the contrary, that the Theory of Evolution is presented critically to young minds for what it is (a biological theory, NOT a fact, or, worse, some sort of "scientific replacement of Genesis 1") is what the zealots of ToE dread.


And, as you can see, Blübelieves that the "opinion" of puppet judge John Edward Jones III was ... er ... necessary for the "defence" of science.


[a] Our constitution does not allow the state, in the form of public education or otherwise, to establish or promote a particular religious view. ID stamps its feet at various developments in the history of life, crying "it's too complex!" Their explanation is "God did it," which of course is a religious belief and explains nothing. No advancement in scientific knowledge, understanding of how the physical world works, has come from ID. OTOH, many advances and discoveries have resulted from the application of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, much of biology and paleontology could not be understood, as we have come to understand it so much better today, without the TOE.


[b] So judges in courts are needed to make sure agents of the state don't impose their religious views on others. They are not needed to show that ID is not science, and that the TOE is the only viable scientific explanation we have for how the diverse living things that have existed on Earth came to be. There is a mountain of evidence behind the TOE, many things that would not be properly understood without it. OTOH there is the complete lack of evidence for ID, and the glaring absence of any increase in our understanding of any aspect of our physical world that has come about through ID, the fact it has provided no useful predictions that can be tested are made by ID, show that ID is not science. 


[c] One thing that our students, really everyone, needs is an understanding of what science is and what it isn't. Without that fundamental understanding, it's easy to be taken in by pseudoscientific ideas. Unfortunately, a lot of religious institutions in the US promote ID and other forms of creationism [umm ... bias] to their congregants and their children, and science education (and education in general) has been in decline for decades, so many people are very confused. I teach Historical Geology, in the Bible Belt, so I see it all the time. I find it sad that people some people have that they are going to basically lie about reality, which proponents of ID and creationism do a lot, in order to prop up their own religious beliefs. But, as my grandma used to say, it takes all kinds.


[d] To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I offer you Don McLeroy, the former head of the Texas State board of education. That fellow is an example of the kind of confusion that results from promoting ID and other forms of creationism. [umm ... bias] For example, he thinks people were coeval with dinosaurs. That he rose to the head of our state's educational system is itself evidence of the kind of unfortunate things that can result from promoting creationism and ID.


[a] First, I also agree that ID is not a scientific theory, because it lacks the essential ingredient for being science, at least as we understand science since Galileo Galilei, that is ...


hypothesis => deduction from the hypothesis => experiment to corroborate or falsify


I disagree, though, that ID is "creationism in tuxedo". I agree that creationists may find it convenient to see it that way —as some sort of "Trojan horse"— but ID , per se, is a critical affirmation of the limits of ToE, in its ONLY proper scientific form, that is Random Mutation + Natural Selection. Notions like "exaptation" are NOT scientific, because they are, by definition unfalsifiable. In fact "exaptation" is nothing but a pseudo-scientific notion, an invention ad hoc to skirt around the problems posited by ID.


Second, I frankly don't see what "advances and discoveries have resulted from the application of the Theory of Evolution". ToE is perhaps a useful heuristic tool, certainly NOT a research program.


Dobzhansky's claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is perhaps a near-mystical insight, certainly NOT a scientific proposition.


[b] The only point on which I want to insist here is that ID is not (not necessarily, anyway) a "religious view". See, for instance this website, Thelic Thoughts.


[c] See above. Maybe the "Bible Belt" creates a special problem in the States. Thank goodness we have no equivalent on the other side of the pond ...


[d] I am a total fan of Stephen Colbert, and I believe his "interviews" are always a real scream, but, sorry, you have chosen a rather extreme example of Bible thumping YEC. And yes, it is quite appalling, and, I believe, simple unconceivable in Europe, that such obtuse guy should ever rise to the head of any state's educational system.


Apr 24, 2012 -- 5:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

[e] In science, the decision regarding which theory hypothesis provides the better explanation for how things work is based on physical evidence. There is a stunning lack of it for the claims of ID. A valid scientific hypothesis or theory has to make predictions (or "postdictions" in the case of historical sciences like paleontology). [umm ...] The TOE does so. These predictions have led to thousands of new discoveries in paleontology and biology. But what predictions are made by ID? Do they generate reproducible results? Are there any? What new theories or hypothesis that are of use in understanding how the physical world works, or what new discoveries, have come about as a result of using the "theory" of ID? If there are any (and I can't think of one), have they been verified with evidence?


[f] The fundamental tenet of ID, that there is a Designer outside the natural world who intervenes in the natural world is unverifiable, and outside the realm of science which requires that its theories and hypotheses be based on processes and things in the natural world, and that it's evidence from the natural world that is used to judge which hypothesis or theory provides the best explanation. Anything that might lie outside the natural realm can't be verified by science and is therefore beyond the realm of science. A discussion of ID would be acceptable in a comparative religion course, a theology course, or a philosophy course, but to present it as a theory in competition with the TOE is dishonest at worst, and uninformed at best. Sorry.


[g] Another fundamental principle of science is that if your hypothesis doesn't make valid predictions that are verified with evidence, and there are better ways to explain a particular phenomenon, you have to abandon, or at least modify, the hypothesis. If you continue to "believe" it anyway, you're no longer doing science. 


[h] If there were anything to ID, I would pay attention to it. It's not that I'm mocking it, I'm simply stating the reality of the situation. I'm a geologist, and I can understand the world a lot better armed with theories like Evolution and Plate Tectonics. I am aware of the many things we have been able to understand so much better thanks to the TOE. ID does nothing to improve my understanding of the natural world, I know of not one single advancement in geology that has resulted from ID. There is no indication that it has improved anyone else's understanding of how the natural world works, either. Certainly no indication of that has been presented here.


[e] As I have already said, I have no problem admitting that ID isn't a scientific theory. I firmly believe that ALL Natural Science requires methodological naturalism (or materialism). Mind you, I said methodological, NOT metaphysical. That being said, the ToE simply does NOT work as a "general theory of life". If you are at all familiar with John Maynard Smith's and Eörs Szathmáry's 1995 book The Major Transitions in Evolution, I don't need to spend words on this.


[f] Leaving aside your insistence on ID having (necessarily) to do with religion and/or theology, I agree with you, once again, that  that ID is more of a philosophical position, in fact, with a lot of upgrade consequent to our present knowledge of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, we may say that it is some sort of revival of William Pailey's teleological argument.


[g] What you say is correct and naive at the same time. However much the staunch advocates of "strict naturalism" may insist, the ONLY reason why they insist on "spontaneous" abiogenesis is certainly NOT that abiogenesis is "predictable" (in fact as two serious biologists like Gould and Monod insisted, it is vanishingly improbable) BUT ONLY that ALL other hypotheses that don't include an Intelligent Agent, like e.g. "self-organizing systems" are nothing but unverifiable (and unfalsifiable ...) wishful thinking.


[h] Perhaps you should be reminded that when Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics in 1915, he was "welcome" by the heaviest criticism of the "geological establishment" of the time ...


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 11:39AM #264
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


NJ


Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:38PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:59PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:23PM, newsjunkie wrote:

A judge is not needed to show that ID is unscientific, or at best pseudoscience. The judge is needed to keep religious school board members from forcing their religion on schoolchildren in the US.


On the contrary, that the Theory of Evolution is presented critically to young minds for what it is (a biological theory, NOT a fact, or, worse, some sort of "scientific replacement of Genesis 1") is what the zealots of ToE dread.


And, as you can see, Blübelieves that the "opinion" of puppet judge John Edward Jones III was ... er ... necessary for the "defence" of science.


[a] Our constitution does not allow the state, in the form of public education or otherwise, to establish or promote a particular religious view. ID stamps its feet at various developments in the history of life, crying "it's too complex!" Their explanation is "God did it," which of course is a religious belief and explains nothing. No advancement in scientific knowledge, understanding of how the physical world works, has come from ID. OTOH, many advances and discoveries have resulted from the application of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, much of biology and paleontology could not be understood, as we have come to understand it so much better today, without the TOE.


[b] So judges in courts are needed to make sure agents of the state don't impose their religious views on others. They are not needed to show that ID is not science, and that the TOE is the only viable scientific explanation we have for how the diverse living things that have existed on Earth came to be. There is a mountain of evidence behind the TOE, many things that would not be properly understood without it. OTOH there is the complete lack of evidence for ID, and the glaring absence of any increase in our understanding of any aspect of our physical world that has come about through ID, the fact it has provided no useful predictions that can be tested are made by ID, show that ID is not science. 


[c] One thing that our students, really everyone, needs is an understanding of what science is and what it isn't. Without that fundamental understanding, it's easy to be taken in by pseudoscientific ideas. Unfortunately, a lot of religious institutions in the US promote ID and other forms of creationism [umm ... bias] to their congregants and their children, and science education (and education in general) has been in decline for decades, so many people are very confused. I teach Historical Geology, in the Bible Belt, so I see it all the time. I find it sad that people some people have that they are going to basically lie about reality, which proponents of ID and creationism do a lot, in order to prop up their own religious beliefs. But, as my grandma used to say, it takes all kinds.


[d] To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I offer you Don McLeroy, the former head of the Texas State board of education. That fellow is an example of the kind of confusion that results from promoting ID and other forms of creationism. [umm ... bias] For example, he thinks people were coeval with dinosaurs. That he rose to the head of our state's educational system is itself evidence of the kind of unfortunate things that can result from promoting creationism and ID.


[a] First, I also agree that ID is not a scientific theory, because it lacks the essential ingredient for being science, at least as we understand science since Galileo Galilei, that is ...


hypothesis => deduction from the hypothesis => experiment to corroborate or falsify


I disagree, though, that ID is "creationism in tuxedo". I agree that creationists may find it convenient to see it that way —as some sort of "Trojan horse"— but ID , per se, is a critical affirmation of the limits of ToE, in its ONLY proper scientific form, that is Random Mutation + Natural Selection. Notions like "exaptation" are NOT scientific, because they are, by definition unfalsifiable. In fact "exaptation" is nothing but a pseudo-scientific notion, an invention ad hoc to skirt around the problems posited by ID.


Second, I frankly don't see what "advances and discoveries have resulted from the application of the Theory of Evolution". ToE is perhaps a useful heuristic tool, certainly NOT a research program.


Dobzhansky's claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is perhaps a near-mystical insight, certainly NOT a scientific proposition.


[b] The only point on which I want to insist here is that ID is not (not necessarily, anyway) a "religious view". See, for instance this website, Thelic Thoughts.


[c] See above. Maybe the "Bible Belt" creates a special problem in the States. Thank goodness we have no equivalent on the other side of the pond ...


[d] I am a total fan of Stephen Colbert, and I believe his "interviews" are always a real scream, but, sorry, you have chosen a rather extreme example of Bible thumping YEC. And yes, it is quite appalling, and, I believe, simple unconceivable in Europe, that such obtuse guy should ever rise to the head of any state's educational system.


Apr 24, 2012 -- 5:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

[e] In science, the decision regarding which theory hypothesis provides the better explanation for how things work is based on physical evidence. There is a stunning lack of it for the claims of ID. A valid scientific hypothesis or theory has to make predictions (or "postdictions" in the case of historical sciences like paleontology). [umm ...] The TOE does so. These predictions have led to thousands of new discoveries in paleontology and biology. But what predictions are made by ID? Do they generate reproducible results? Are there any? What new theories or hypothesis that are of use in understanding how the physical world works, or what new discoveries, have come about as a result of using the "theory" of ID? If there are any (and I can't think of one), have they been verified with evidence?


[f] The fundamental tenet of ID, that there is a Designer outside the natural world who intervenes in the natural world is unverifiable, and outside the realm of science which requires that its theories and hypotheses be based on processes and things in the natural world, and that it's evidence from the natural world that is used to judge which hypothesis or theory provides the best explanation. Anything that might lie outside the natural realm can't be verified by science and is therefore beyond the realm of science. A discussion of ID would be acceptable in a comparative religion course, a theology course, or a philosophy course, but to present it as a theory in competition with the TOE is dishonest at worst, and uninformed at best. Sorry.


[g] Another fundamental principle of science is that if your hypothesis doesn't make valid predictions that are verified with evidence, and there are better ways to explain a particular phenomenon, you have to abandon, or at least modify, the hypothesis. If you continue to "believe" it anyway, you're no longer doing science. 


[h] If there were anything to ID, I would pay attention to it. It's not that I'm mocking it, I'm simply stating the reality of the situation. I'm a geologist, and I can understand the world a lot better armed with theories like Evolution and Plate Tectonics. I am aware of the many things we have been able to understand so much better thanks to the TOE. ID does nothing to improve my understanding of the natural world, I know of not one single advancement in geology that has resulted from ID. There is no indication that it has improved anyone else's understanding of how the natural world works, either. Certainly no indication of that has been presented here.


[e] As I have already said, I have no problem admitting that ID isn't a scientific theory. I firmly believe that ALL Natural Science requires methodological naturalism (or materialism). Mind you, I said methodological, NOT metaphysical. That being said, the ToE simply does NOT work as a "general theory of life". If you are at all familiar with John Maynard Smith's and Eörs Szathmáry's 1995 book The Major Transitions in Evolution, I don't need to spend words on this.


[f] Leaving aside your insistence on ID having (necessarily) to do with religion and/or theology, I agree with you, once again, that  that ID is more of a philosophical position, in fact, with a lot of upgrade consequent to our present knowledge of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, we may say that it is some sort of revival of William Pailey's teleological argument.


[g] What you say is correct and naive at the same time. However much the staunch advocates of "strict naturalism" may insist, the ONLY reason why they insist on "spontaneous" abiogenesis is certainly NOT that abiogenesis is "predictable" (in fact as two serious biologists like Gould and Monod insisted, it is vanishingly improbable) BUT ONLY that ALL other hypotheses that don't include an Intelligent Agent, like e.g. "self-organizing systems" are nothing but unverifiable (and unfalsifiable ...) wishful thinking.


[h] Perhaps you should be reminded that when Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics in 1915, he was "welcome" by the heaviest criticism of the "geological establishment" of the time ...


MdS




You misunderstood what I said about predictability, but that's OK.


ID is promoted by the Discovery Institute, as a central piece of its clearly religious and political agenda. It is not scientific, as you admit. Do you want to call it philosophy? Fine! It is not science, and not to be taught in science classes. I'll let the philosophers debate with you about its includsion in philosophy classes.


If you want to believe in ID, that's fine too. People are free to believe in whatever they want. 


I never said the TOE was needed to explain everything in biology. The plate tectonic theory doesn't explain everything in geology. The TOE is not presented in my class or any others I'm aware of as a "General Theory of Life," just as plate tectonics is not presented as a "General Theory of Earth." Abiogenesis is not part of the TOE; you seem to be confusing the two.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 12:40PM #265
Blü
Posts: 24,672

Mario


And, as you can see, Blü believes that the "opinion" of puppet judge John Edward Jones III was ... er ... necessary for the "defence" of science.


I enjoy my talks with you.


But just like last time, when, for no better reason than that you don't like the outcome, you attribute corruption to a judge who gives a properly reasoned conclusion in writing, firmly based on the evidence, and at the same time you offer no reasoned reply to the points I mentioned, I think that's just plain cheap and nothing to your credit.


If you want to make a case for ID, start a new thread - the Origins of Life board in the Science and Religion section is the appropriate forum.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:36PM #266
amcolph
Posts: 17,157

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


] I am a total fan of Stephen Colbert, and I believe his "interviews" are always a real scream, but, sorry, you have chosen a rather extreme example of Bible thumping YEC. And yes, it is quite appalling, and, I believe, simple unconceivable in Europe, that such obtuse guy should ever rise to the head of any state's educational system.




Neither extreme nor unusual as members of the Religious Right go, I'm sorry to say.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:40PM #267
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:36PM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


] I am a total fan of Stephen Colbert, and I believe his "interviews" are always a real scream, but, sorry, you have chosen a rather extreme example of Bible thumping YEC. And yes, it is quite appalling, and, I believe, simple unconceivable in Europe, that such obtuse guy should ever rise to the head of any state's educational system.




Neither extreme nor unusual as members of the Religious Right go, I'm sorry to say.




And I am sorry you actually believe that oft-repeated pack of lies.  The "Religious Right" is no more odd or off-base than any other demographic group; they just happen to be a convenient grouop to attack and demean.  Just as some people still believe hateful lies about gays or atheists, others spread lies about conservatives who happen to hold onto traditional beliefs.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:34PM #268
amcolph
Posts: 17,157

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:40PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:36PM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


] I am a total fan of Stephen Colbert, and I believe his "interviews" are always a real scream, but, sorry, you have chosen a rather extreme example of Bible thumping YEC. And yes, it is quite appalling, and, I believe, simple unconceivable in Europe, that such obtuse guy should ever rise to the head of any state's educational system.




Neither extreme nor unusual as members of the Religious Right go, I'm sorry to say.




And I am sorry you actually believe that oft-repeated pack of lies.  The "Religious Right" is no more odd or off-base than any other demographic group; they just happen to be a convenient grouop to attack and demean.  Just as some people still believe hateful lies about gays or atheists, others spread lies about conservatives who happen to hold onto traditional beliefs.




Not a chance, son.  For my sins, I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and I know better.


Notice that I didn't say anything hateful and demeaning about McLeroy, only that he was typical and in my experience that is so.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 27 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook