twobirds
Seasoned Citizen
Religion is a con.
Posts: 111
|
Post by twobirds on May 2, 2005 16:31:44 GMT -5
he was just being difficult, first he says "theres no evidence to support Christianity" so I say "Here is a book" he says" I cant trust that book its writen by a Christian" I'm not trying to be an a$$ but why didn't you just hand him the Holy Bilble and tell him to read that, or is that not enough "evidence"?
|
|
|
Post by william on May 3, 2005 3:21:56 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be an a$$ but why didn't you just hand him the Holy Bilble and tell him to read that, or is that not enough "evidence"? I have tried to get him to check out some of the prophesy concerning the regathering of the Jews in Isreal.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on May 3, 2005 13:26:50 GMT -5
william That's a very bad assumption for an investigative journalist to make especially when it simply is not true. It seems to me to be the case that very few people in this country actually know much about the case against faith. It would seem that if Strobel wanted to be even handed he would deal with both sides of the issue and make no assumptions about what the arguements agains are. In fact, many of the arguements "against" that Strobel brings out are not really very common among atheists. He seems to skip around the real issues. He only covers objections that Christians think that atheists have.
william I assume that you are referring to the whole evolution vs. creation (intelligent design) arguement. First off, I think that what is taught in schools should generally be left up to local school boards. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of the federal government mandating certain things be taught in certain ways. I think school boards should make educated decisions about curriculum, making sure that they are in step with other schools around the country. However, Washington should not be coming in and saying "You have to teach this" or "You can't teach that".
That being said, I am adamantly opposed to Intelligent Design being taught as an alternative theory to evolution. However, this opposition comes from my being a scientist, not my being an atheist. If Intelligent Design was able to acheive the level of credibility of a scientific theory, I wouldn't oppose it being taught as such. However, ID has thus far failed to establish itself as a legitimate theory. In fact, it is little more than a laundry list of "objections" to evolution with no real meat behind it. It is little better than a veiled attempt by the religious community to thwart scientific progress in order to preserve tradition. Therefore, when a school board recognizes that ID is not good science and evolution is, I will support the school board. If they want to allow ID to be taught in the context of a social studies course or a religion course, I wouldn't object to that either. However, I wouldn't go so far as say that no school should be allowed to teach ID in a scientific context. I simply think that it would be a travesty if that happened at this time.
|
|
|
Post by william on May 4, 2005 3:32:45 GMT -5
if he had sold his book with a different tital such as the case OF Christ or something nutral I would expect him to be even handed, but his book was the case FOR Christ. what have you read about ID that is unscientific? I couldnt agree more about the feds staying out of education. will you read Case for a Creator?
|
|
|
Post by droskey on May 4, 2005 11:17:47 GMT -5
william I might take a look at it when I get a chance.
william To be honest, I haven't read a great deal about intelligent design from the folks that are big proponents of it (e.g. Behe). I have read pieces of anti-evolution literature by folks like Denton. From the arguements that I have seen presented on boards and that I have seen rebutted by evolutionists there are two main tracks in the ID/Creation camp. One is anti-evolution, which cannot constitute a science in and of itself. Also, many if not most of the arguements of the anti-evolution camp have been addressed or don't actually undermine evolution as a theory. The other camp holds that ID is a valid scientific theory based on irreducible complexity. The problem with this is that ID has not done what it needs to do to be considered a valid theory. It is, at best, a hypothesis. It's all fine and good to conjecture that certain biochemical mechanisms are irreducibly complex, but until you can show that to be the case, to within reasonable doubt, a theory you don't have. My understanding is that these are the sort of arguments that Behe makes. ID could be a valid starting point for further investigation. However, there is political motivation to push it as an alternative to evolution. Specifically, there is a push to do this in the public schools. ID has not proven itself and should not be regarded as a scientific theory until it does. Nothing is preventing researchers from doing research into the hypothesis of irreducible complexity. There is probably a way to show that something is irreducibly complex if it really is. That's where the ID folks should be concentrating their energy rather than trying to get their hypothesis taught as a theory in public schools. THAT is very unscientific.
|
|
|
Post by william on May 4, 2005 14:49:43 GMT -5
williamI might take a look at it when I get a chance. williamTo be honest, I haven't read a great deal about intelligent design from the folks that are big proponents of it (e.g. Behe). I have read pieces of anti-evolution literature by folks like Denton. From the arguements that I have seen presented on boards and that I have seen rebutted by evolutionists there are two main tracks in the ID/Creation camp. One is anti-evolution, which cannot constitute a science in and of itself. Also, many if not most of the arguements of the anti-evolution camp have been addressed or don't actually undermine evolution as a theory. The other camp holds that ID is a valid scientific theory based on irreducible complexity. The problem with this is that ID has not done what it needs to do to be considered a valid theory. It is, at best, a hypothesis. It's all fine and good to conjecture that certain biochemical mechanisms are irreducibly complex, but until you can show that to be the case, to within reasonable doubt, a theory you don't have. My understanding is that these are the sort of arguments that Behe makes. ID could be a valid starting point for further investigation. However, there is political motivation to push it as an alternative to evolution. Specifically, there is a push to do this in the public schools. ID has not proven itself and should not be regarded as a scientific theory until it does. Nothing is preventing researchers from doing research into the hypothesis of irreducible complexity. There is probably a way to show that something is irreducibly complex if it really is. That's where the ID folks should be concentrating their energy rather than trying to get their hypothesis taught as a theory in public schools. THAT is very unscientific. of the books Ive read on the topic there are some that weave in more theology than others wich I would assume would anoy you, but if i remember right, Behe sticks to the observable and makes certain predictions from what is falsifiable. I make no pretence at being edducated but that seams scientific to me. if we eliminate from the table anyone who has a different world view or who chalenges the current trend, can we honesly claim that science is crosschecked through pear review. I think if you really think about the scientific comunity, you would agree that it is full of political biases of all sorts. the one aspect of ID that you missed as far as I can tell is, can we infer intelligence from information that can not be explained through natural process. is this line of thinking scientific? if an anthropologist digs up a scull cap and a femur and finds with them an arrow head and piece of petrified wood that is shaped remarcably like a buffallo. would it be unscientific for him to postulate(is that the right word?) that this homanid was inteligent? not if he could eliminate other explenations for the apearence of complexity of the Items. that is where the ireducible complexity fits. wasnt it Crick (the double helix guy) that although he was an atheist, didnt believe life could have arose from non life without inteligent cause. So he opted for the ET theory? I may be wrong on this I dont remember my sorce. If you dont want to take the time the read Darwins Black Box I would recomend watching the vidio Unlocking the Mystery Of Life the scientific case for inteligent design. it is only 65 min, very litle God stuff if any and you could then honestly say youve given ID a fair hearing. it cost 20$. aside from the ID stuf it has a great computer animated demonstration of how DNA is used in amino acid sequencing.(I never did quite understand it until I watched the vidio) Very cool!
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on May 4, 2005 15:23:32 GMT -5
If you dont want to take the time the read Darwins Black Box I would recomend watching the vidio Unlocking the Mystery Of Life the scientific case for inteligent design. it is only 65 min, very litle God stuff if any and you could then honestly say youve given ID a fair hearing. it cost 20$. aside from the ID stuf it has a great computer animated demonstration of how DNA is used in amino acid sequencing.(I never did quite understand it until I watched the vidio) Very cool! Behe's book has some problems. His chemistry for the most part doesn't go beyond basic and isn't really utilized to present a "biochemical challenge" to evolutionary theory. He makes the fasle analogy of a mousetrap to organisms and harps constantly on flagella and cillia (amongst other "examples" of ID) which can most likely be an example of structures which have changed usage with time. For example, cilia could have likely was utilized in food capture before it may have been used for locomotion. Behe isn't stupid, he's not a bad biochemist but in the area of philosophy of science he's not that great. ID itself comes down to a huge jump which ID proponents have tried vehemently to keep from being a non-sequitur. Critiques to Behe's book: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.htmlwww.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.htmlbiomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 17, 2006 0:44:34 GMT -5
I'm not well versed in science but has ET proven itself?
About the book, you can't prove something that does not have matter to test. You can prove there is air by what chemicals it comprises. You can prove a void by the absence of matter. But you cannot prove a God exists by statement alone. I say statement alone because what kind of scientific test can you perform on a God?
As for Strobel's "The Case for Christ" see Earl Doherty's book "CHALLENGING THE VERDICT: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ."
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Jul 18, 2006 14:17:39 GMT -5
snafui
The short answer is, yes. ET has proven itself over and over again. It can legitimately be called a valid scientific theory. ID has failed to do so. At best, ID is simply a conjecture. It doesn't seem to have much to it that can be tested.
snafui
Actually, science doesn't typically prove ideas. It disproves them. And you can certainly submit an idea to scientific scrutiny without having matter. The idea must be testable. ET makes predictions that are testable. ID, so far, does not.
snafui
Right, you cannot prove that a God exists by statement alone. However, if your "theory of god" results in implications in the real world, these implications can be tested. If the results contradict your theory of god, then the theory in its current state is wrong.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 18, 2006 21:07:04 GMT -5
Thanks jacopo ever since I started pursuits in the social sciences my sciences themselves kind of fell out of my head...
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 19, 2006 22:23:30 GMT -5
Had a random memory creap in as I re-read what you wrote... if this book scientifically proves God, then the author must have put God to the test? If so I wonder how he'll be treated on judgment day:
Do not test the LORD your God.... - Deuteronomy 6:16
|
|