Re: RELIGION No Intelligence Allowed

[Guest guest]

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?

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.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

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.

--- In , Idol <paul.idol@...>

wrote:

>

> 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.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe that's where the " Having eyes, they cannot see " bit comes from -

some things can't be seen unless you look for them and want to see

them - interestingly an argument that will make you feel like you've

won and at the same time make me feel like I've won.

Gaston Naessens saw the same shape-changing bacteria/viruses that

Bechamp, Rife, and Günther Enderlein discovered yet modern science

still denies them, because they run counter to their dearly held germ

theory.

--- In , Idol <paul.idol@...>

wrote:

>

> 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

> > 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.

>

> This is a terrible analogy, though. An assertion that a mural

could

> be formed by natural processes would -- if it were to have any

> scientific legitimacy -- have to be supported by an examination of

the

> mural and a set of hypotheses explaining how natural processes

could

> give rise to the mural. Furthermore, those hypotheses would have

to

> be capable of generating testable hypotheses about what new

> discoveries might be made in the natural world and what as-of-yet

> unmade murals might soon be formed.

>

> Stripped of any parallel or larger agendas, ID boils down to the

> argument that, gee, the natural world is awfully complex, and

there's

> no way this complexity could possibly have arisen due to natural

> forces and without a designer, the so-called " footprints " being

> various examples of complexity and the increase in complexity.

All

> that's required to falsify this assertion is to demonstrate how

> natural processes can in fact give rise to the very complexity we

see

> around us, and evolutionary theory, for all its incompleteness,

has

> done a very good job of exactly that.

>

> -

>

>