Re: Re: RELIGION No Intelligence Allowed

October 24, 2008

Renate-

> I don't get that. How can whether or not something is causative or

> whether or not something exists be " not science " ? Are you assuming

> that science is by definition aethistic? Is search for undiscovered

> viruses science? Undiscovered stars? Then why isn't an as-yet-

> unproven " higher power " science?

>

> Or more to the point, if there is a reasonable probability that there

> may be some higher intelligence that did indeed guide evolution, why

> does that not have an equal weight to the probability that it

> happened spontaneously? Aren't they both just theories, until

> someone can themselves create life to prove how it actually

> happened?

Science is limited to testable hypotheses. If I say " there's an

invisible dragon hovering over my shoulder that cannot be detected by

any means, " that's not a scientific hypotheses because it is by

definition untestable.

As to giving equal weight to ID, that would be like asking why I don't

give equal weight to the competing hypotheses that there either is or

isn't an invisible and completely undetectable dragon hovering over my

shoulder. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for said dragon,

so there's no reason to believe it exists. Similarly, there's

absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast abundance

of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's genomes

that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

> In my mind, saying something like " many people of the world believe

> evolution may be guided by a higher intelligence " is not teaching

> religion, but merely a statement of fact that removes the " experts

> agree that God doesn't exist " message that is given by not giving it

> a mention. Because frankly, saying something doesn't exist when that

> can't be proven is not very scientific either. It's like someone

> saying that all species on earth have been discovered, described, and

> catalogued.

Saying " many people of the world believe evolution may be guided by a

higher intelligence " is a sociological description of human culture,

not a scientific assertion in any way related to evolutionary biology.

-

October 24, 2008

,

> As to giving equal weight to ID, that would be like asking why I don't

> give equal weight to the competing hypotheses that there either is or

> isn't an invisible and completely undetectable dragon hovering over my

> shoulder. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for said dragon,

> so there's no reason to believe it exists. Similarly, there's

> absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast abundance

> of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's genomes

> that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

> numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How is the

use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

Chris

October 24, 2008

Let me focus on these thoughts, :

> " Or more to the point, if there is a reasonable probability that there

> may be some higher intelligence that did indeed guide evolution, why

> does that not have an equal weight to the probability that it

> happened spontaneously? Aren't they both just theories, until

> someone can themselves create life to prove how it actually

> happened. "

I think we would give equal weight to both theories, Intelligent Design and

spontaneity, if they had equal evidence. Then you would appropriately give a

50%/50% chance to both theories. (Unless you were biased one way or another.)

I think that every theory (creation, evolution, or whether my son's chicken's

will grow better on one feed versus another) are all testable hypotheses

(theories) that should be examined in light of the evidence. After reviewing

the evidence, we should then all be free to make our own evaluations as to how

the evidence supports or does not support the theory. You would only give a

50/50 chance to both theories if the evidence stacked up that way.

Let me side-step the evolution question as to answer it would take all day.

But, we've been trying to teach the " what's the evidence? " concept in my home

lately. We are Christians and within the Christian community (as well as

outside that worldview group) there is a question as to how old our universe is.

Our son blindly was accepting the young earth theory that the world is about

6000 years old based on a literal interpretation of scriptures. I said, " Fine,

but what is your evidence? " Likewise, my husband was blindly accepting that the

earth is old. But none of us really knew of any evidence one way or another.

And it's all so complex that it takes alot of thought to digest it all. But, we

are trying to do so and have stacked up the evidence side by side.

I'll close by sharing with you the beginning of our lists. As we continue our

debate, maybe we'll decide which theory we think has more evidence. Maybe not.

Maybe we'll assign probabilities and it will turn out 50/50. Maybe not. But,

we want to look at the evidence nonetheless and believe that doing so is a whole

lot of fun. And we also believe that looking at the evidence is what you should

do for every question, evolution included.

Young Earth

1. If the earth was older than 6000 years, the ocean would be much saltier due

to the fact that minerals would have dissolved.

2. If the earth was older, there would be more Helium. The amount of He

indicates that the earth is less than 200,000 years. (He is created by

radioactive decay and it is heavy so not light enought to escape the

atmosphere.)

3. Dinosaur and human fossils have been found together at the same level of the

earth, indicating they were alive at the same time.

4. Decay of earth's magnetic field (I don't understand this one, just taking it

from my son's list)

5. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on moons would be greater if our universe

was older.

6. We'd have more metals in the ocean if the earth was older.

7. We first found dinosaur fossils in the 1800s but referred to dragons before

that. How'd we have that idea if we'd never seen them?

8. We've found cave drawings of dinosaurs indicating man has lived with them.

9. We've found a mummified dinosaur, that is, one with skin on it. No skin

could last millions of years.

Old Earth.

1. Some galaxies are 1 billion light years away. If we were created from

nothingness, those galaxies were created at the beginning of creation so the

earth is at least 1 billion years old.

2. we saw a supernoval on Feb 23, 1987. We were able to establish it is

160,000 light years away so the universe is at least that old.

3. We can date rocks at 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old. (carbon dating)

4. We can date minerals at 4.1-4.2 billion years old (carbon dating)

5. We can see the edge of the universe and that is 15 billion light years away,

thus the universe is at least that old.

October 24, 2008

On Oct 24, 2008, at 2:29 AM, haecklers wrote:

> I don't get that. How can whether or not something is causative or

> whether or not something exists be " not science " ? Are you assuming

> that science is by definition aethistic? Is search for undiscovered

> viruses science? Undiscovered stars? Then why isn't an as-yet-

> unproven " higher power " science?

>

You haven't yet explained how a higher power can be tested for, or how

predictions can be made as to its behavior, etc....

Can it be possible that you really cannot see the difference between a

God, and between an undiscovered star? Is a God a physical entity that

can be measured?

Your posts signify that you haven't understood much of what has been

said here.

>

> Or more to the point, if there is a reasonable probability that there

> may be some higher intelligence that did indeed guide evolution, why

> does that not have an equal weight to the probability that it

> happened spontaneously? Aren't they both just theories, until

> someone can themselves create life to prove how it actually

> happened?

>

> Is it dismissed simply because it is commonly held as true by most of

> the world's religions that also believe in other unscientific

> things? Does it " not belong in science class " simply because the

> science establishment is anti-religion? Is the censorship as Ben

> Stein calls it, a result of the science establishment's own arrogant

> and unexamined belief that any religion is primitive and has nothing

> to contribute or teach us?

>

> In my mind, saying something like " many people of the world believe

> evolution may be guided by a higher intelligence " is not teaching

> religion, but merely a statement of fact that removes the " experts

> agree that God doesn't exist " message that is given by not giving it

> a mention. Because frankly, saying something doesn't exist when that

> can't be proven is not very scientific either. It's like someone

> saying that all species on earth have been discovered, described, and

> catalogued.

>

> >

> > > So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> > > " real " science and " soft "

> > > science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> > > find it all a

> > > grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> > > the time,

> > > does that " prove " it is a fact?

> >

> > The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is

> to make predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes

> overdetermined...meaning that there are too many inputs to the system

> to always predict the outcomes. Let's talk more about

> probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft science

> actually deals with more complex systems.

> >

> > Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just

> making the point that theological arguments and theories, like

> Intelligent Design, have no place in science courses. That doesn't

> mean that Intelligent Design is wrong. However, it is not science.

> >

>

October 24, 2008

Chris-

I think you misunderstood my point. I characterized the fossil record

as evidence. Definitely it's a weaker grade of evidence since it's

entirely retrospective, but it's still evidence. A theory is

testable; a piece of evidence is just whatever it is.

-

> > As to giving equal weight to ID, that would be like asking why I

> don't

> > give equal weight to the competing hypotheses that there either is

> or

> > isn't an invisible and completely undetectable dragon hovering

> over my

> > shoulder. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for said dragon,

> > so there's no reason to believe it exists. Similarly, there's

> > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

> abundance

> > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's

> genomes

> > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

> > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

>

> I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How is the

> use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

October 24, 2008

On Oct 24, 2008, at 7:04 AM, Marcelle A. Kinney, Ph.D. wrote:

> Let me focus on these thoughts, :

>

> > " Or more to the point, if there is a reasonable probability that

> there

> > may be some higher intelligence that did indeed guide evolution, why

> > does that not have an equal weight to the probability that it

> > happened spontaneously? Aren't they both just theories, until

> > someone can themselves create life to prove how it actually

> > happened. "

>

> I think we would give equal weight to both theories, Intelligent

> Design and spontaneity, if they had equal evidence. Then you would

> appropriately give a 50%/50% chance to both theories. (Unless you

> were biased one way or another.)

>

No one has yet has given any description of what actual evidence of

Intelligent Design would be. That certainly includes your initial

post. The 'evidence' is philosophical/religious, i.e. totally biased.

Given that there is no scientific evidence of Intelligent Design, it

would be ridiculous for reasons made clear by multiple people here, to

give it equal weight in a science program.

>

> I think that every theory (creation, evolution, or whether my son's

> chicken's will grow better on one feed versus another) are all

> testable hypotheses (theories) that should be examined in light of

> the evidence. After reviewing the evidence, we should then all be

> free to make our own evaluations as to how the evidence supports or

> does not support the theory. You would only give a 50/50 chance to

> both theories if the evidence stacked up that way.

>

Still waiting for how we would test for a Creator....

>

> Let me side-step the evolution question as to answer it would take

> all day. But, we've been trying to teach the " what's the evidence? "

> concept in my home lately. We are Christians and within the

> Christian community (as well as outside that worldview group) there

> is a question as to how old our universe is. Our son blindly was

> accepting the young earth theory that the world is about 6000 years

> old based on a literal interpretation of scriptures. I said, " Fine,

> but what is your evidence? " Likewise, my husband was blindly

> accepting that the earth is old. But none of us really knew of any

> evidence one way or another. And it's all so complex that it takes

> alot of thought to digest it all. But, we are trying to do so and

> have stacked up the evidence side by side.

>

You're saying that there is equal evidence that the earth is 6000

years old and that it is billions of years old?

>

> I'll close by sharing with you the beginning of our lists. As we

> continue our debate, maybe we'll decide which theory we think has

> more evidence. Maybe not. Maybe we'll assign probabilities and it

> will turn out 50/50. Maybe not. But, we want to look at the evidence

> nonetheless and believe that doing so is a whole lot of fun. And we

> also believe that looking at the evidence is what you should do for

> every question, evolution included.

>

For EVERY question?

I " m also curious - how, with any degree of rigor, could you assign

probabilities to the existence of a God? That doesn't strike you as

laughably absurd? I just can't see why some so-called religious people

can't simply accept that faith is as far as they are going to get, and

not try to force their AGENDA on everyone else. This is the kind of

Christianity that I object to - not Christianity itself, as some

people here like to accuse me of.

>

> Young Earth

> 1. If the earth was older than 6000 years, the ocean would be much

> saltier due to the fact that minerals would have dissolved.

> 2. If the earth was older, there would be more Helium. The amount of

> He indicates that the earth is less than 200,000 years. (He is

> created by radioactive decay and it is heavy so not light enought to

> escape the atmosphere.)

> 3. Dinosaur and human fossils have been found together at the same

> level of the earth, indicating they were alive at the same time.

> 4. Decay of earth's magnetic field (I don't understand this one,

> just taking it from my son's list)

> 5. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on moons would be greater if our

> universe was older.

> 6. We'd have more metals in the ocean if the earth was older.

> 7. We first found dinosaur fossils in the 1800s but referred to

> dragons before that. How'd we have that idea if we'd never seen them?

> 8. We've found cave drawings of dinosaurs indicating man has lived

> with them.

> 9. We've found a mummified dinosaur, that is, one with skin on it.

> No skin could last millions of years.

>

> Old Earth.

> 1. Some galaxies are 1 billion light years away. If we were created

> from nothingness, those galaxies were created at the beginning of

> creation so the earth is at least 1 billion years old.

> 2. we saw a supernoval on Feb 23, 1987. We were able to establish it

> is 160,000 light years away so the universe is at least that old.

> 3. We can date rocks at 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old. (carbon dating)

> 4. We can date minerals at 4.1-4.2 billion years old (carbon dating)

> 5. We can see the edge of the universe and that is 15 billion light

> years away, thus the universe is at least that old.

>

October 24, 2008

Please - explain (for the 500th time) how God would be 'detectable' by

scientific experiment, and how you could conclude scientifically that

it was, in actuality, God?

> ,

>

> Could it be instead that the intelligence behind design is the main

> ruling theory among non-scientist (or non-agnostic scientists, at

> least the ones who don't get a say in text book writing)? I don't

> know where you get the idea that God is undetectable by definition

> which seems to be what you are saying. I think the ID people are

> saying there are " footprints " of a god and that is what they would

> like to be put on the table for the discussion of how we came to be

> what we are. Like there's a mural on a wall and most people agree an

> artist painted it but some scientist says " No, it just spontaneously

> occurred, due to weather, minerals accumulating, sunspots, etc.

> There is no proof an artist made it. " He can use his authority to

> get a group of cronies and students to disbelieve in artists if he

> wants to, and prove his point by showing how water stains, sunsets

> and canyon walls are similar.

>

> >

> > Renate-

> >

> > > I don't get that. How can whether or not something is causative or

> > > whether or not something exists be " not science " ? Are you assuming

> > > that science is by definition aethistic? Is search for

> undiscovered

> > > viruses science? Undiscovered stars? Then why isn't an as-yet-

> > > unproven " higher power " science?

> > >

> > > Or more to the point, if there is a reasonable probability that

> there

> > > may be some higher intelligence that did indeed guide evolution,

> why

> > > does that not have an equal weight to the probability that it

> > > happened spontaneously? Aren't they both just theories, until

> > > someone can themselves create life to prove how it actually

> > > happened?

> >

> > Science is limited to testable hypotheses. If I say " there's an

> > invisible dragon hovering over my shoulder that cannot be detected

> by

> > any means, " that's not a scientific hypotheses because it is by

> > definition untestable.

> >

> > As to giving equal weight to ID, that would be like asking why I

> don't

> > give equal weight to the competing hypotheses that there either is

> or

> > isn't an invisible and completely undetectable dragon hovering over

> my

> > shoulder. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for said

> dragon,

> > so there's no reason to believe it exists. Similarly, there's

> > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

> abundance

> > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's

> genomes

> > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

> > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

> >

> > > In my mind, saying something like " many people of the world

> believe

> > > evolution may be guided by a higher intelligence " is not teaching

> > > religion, but merely a statement of fact that removes the " experts

> > > agree that God doesn't exist " message that is given by not giving

> it

> > > a mention. Because frankly, saying something doesn't exist when

> that

> > > can't be proven is not very scientific either. It's like someone

> > > saying that all species on earth have been discovered, described,

> and

> > > catalogued.

> >

> > Saying " many people of the world believe evolution may be guided by

> a

> > higher intelligence " is a sociological description of human

> culture,

> > not a scientific assertion in any way related to evolutionary

> biology.

> >

> > -

> >

October 24, 2008

,

> > > Similarly, there's

> > > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

> > > abundance

> > > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's

> > > genomes

> > > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

> > > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

> > I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How is the

> > use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

> I think you misunderstood my point. I characterized the fossil record

> as evidence. Definitely it's a weaker grade of evidence since it's

> entirely retrospective, but it's still evidence. A theory is

> testable; a piece of evidence is just whatever it is.

The use of evidence depends on a theory of evidence. If you infer

common descent from morphological similarities and geological

stratifications in the fossil record, you need to be able to test your

theory that morphological similarities and geological stratifications

are legitimate means for inferring common descent. If you don't do

that, it is meaningless to say you've " tested " common descent. You

need to legitimize the assumptions with testing, all the way back to

the initial a priori assumptions of the scientific method.

Chris

October 24, 2008

LOL - how exactly can you test a priori assumptions? And is the

assumption of the scientific method really a priori? If you give up

the scientific method entirely, how would you test the scientific

method? Isn't its validity a philosophical discussion? In philosophy,

one doesn't 'test' theories.

> ,

>

> > > > Similarly, there's

> > > > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

> > > > abundance

> > > > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's

> > > > genomes

> > > > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

> > > > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

>

> > > I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How is

> the

> > > use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

>

> > I think you misunderstood my point. I characterized the fossil

> record

> > as evidence. Definitely it's a weaker grade of evidence since it's

> > entirely retrospective, but it's still evidence. A theory is

> > testable; a piece of evidence is just whatever it is.

>

> The use of evidence depends on a theory of evidence. If you infer

> common descent from morphological similarities and geological

> stratifications in the fossil record, you need to be able to test your

> theory that morphological similarities and geological stratifications

> are legitimate means for inferring common descent. If you don't do

> that, it is meaningless to say you've " tested " common descent. You

> need to legitimize the assumptions with testing, all the way back to

> the initial a priori assumptions of the scientific method.

>

> Chris

>

October 24, 2008

On 10/24/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> LOL - how exactly can you test a priori assumptions?

You can't. When I said " all the way back to, " rather than " all the

way back through, " I meant you stop at those assumptions, but not

before them.

> And is the

> assumption of the scientific method really a priori? If you give up

> the scientific method entirely, how would you test the scientific

> method? Isn't its validity a philosophical discussion? In philosophy,

> one doesn't 'test' theories.

Right. The a priori assumptions are not testable. They are derived

logically from other a priori assumptions via philosophy. Everything

else built on top of them is testable. Thus, all the theories of

evidence built on top of them must be legitimized before the evidence

relying on those theories of evidence is used to test other theories.

Chris

>

>> ,

>>

>> > > > Similarly, there's

>> > > > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

>> > > > abundance

>> > > > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the earth's

>> > > > genomes

>> > > > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on earth,

>> > > > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

>>

>> > > I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How is

>> the

>> > > use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

>>

>> > I think you misunderstood my point. I characterized the fossil

>> record

>> > as evidence. Definitely it's a weaker grade of evidence since it's

>> > entirely retrospective, but it's still evidence. A theory is

>> > testable; a piece of evidence is just whatever it is.

>>

>> The use of evidence depends on a theory of evidence. If you infer

>> common descent from morphological similarities and geological

>> stratifications in the fossil record, you need to be able to test your

>> theory that morphological similarities and geological stratifications

>> are legitimate means for inferring common descent. If you don't do

>> that, it is meaningless to say you've " tested " common descent. You

>> need to legitimize the assumptions with testing, all the way back to

>> the initial a priori assumptions of the scientific method.

>>

>> Chris

>>

>

October 24, 2008

Misunderstood you.

> On 10/24/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > LOL - how exactly can you test a priori assumptions?

>

> You can't. When I said " all the way back to, " rather than " all the

> way back through, " I meant you stop at those assumptions, but not

> before them.

>

> > And is the

> > assumption of the scientific method really a priori? If you give up

> > the scientific method entirely, how would you test the scientific

> > method? Isn't its validity a philosophical discussion? In

> philosophy,

> > one doesn't 'test' theories.

>

> Right. The a priori assumptions are not testable. They are derived

> logically from other a priori assumptions via philosophy. Everything

> else built on top of them is testable. Thus, all the theories of

> evidence built on top of them must be legitimized before the evidence

> relying on those theories of evidence is used to test other theories.

>

> Chris

>

> >

> >> ,

> >>

> >> > > > Similarly, there's

> >> > > > absolutely no evidence whatsoever for ID, but there's a vast

> >> > > > abundance

> >> > > > of evidence for evolution, including such parts of the

> earth's

> >> > > > genomes

> >> > > > that we've mapped, the fossil record, assays of life on

> earth,

> >> > > > numerous observations of evolution in action, and much more.

> >>

> >> > > I think you're approaching this with quite a bit of bias. How

> is

> >> the

> >> > > use of the fossil record in constructing phylogenies testable?

> >>

> >> > I think you misunderstood my point. I characterized the fossil

> >> record

> >> > as evidence. Definitely it's a weaker grade of evidence since

> it's

> >> > entirely retrospective, but it's still evidence. A theory is

> >> > testable; a piece of evidence is just whatever it is.

> >>

> >> The use of evidence depends on a theory of evidence. If you infer

> >> common descent from morphological similarities and geological

> >> stratifications in the fossil record, you need to be able to test

> your

> >> theory that morphological similarities and geological

> stratifications

> >> are legitimate means for inferring common descent. If you don't do

> >> that, it is meaningless to say you've " tested " common descent. You

> >> need to legitimize the assumptions with testing, all the way back

> to

> >> the initial a priori assumptions of the scientific method.

> >>

> >> Chris

> >>

> >

October 24, 2008

Renate-

> Could it be instead that the intelligence behind design is the main

> ruling theory among non-scientist (or non-agnostic scientists, at

> least the ones who don't get a say in text book writing)?

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggest that ID is the predominant

theory of non-scientists, and/or of non-agnostic scientists, and/or of

scientists selected solely according to the criteria of who gets a say

in textbook writing?

> I don't

> know where you get the idea that God is undetectable by definition

> which seems to be what you are saying.

If god were detectable, I'd expect believers to trumpet the fact to

everyone with ears -- and to everyone without ears, as well.

> I think the ID people are