ID Advocates - ID is Science, Not Religion??
Dave
religions, groups and schools of thought, including: Christians, Hindus,
Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics
I have NEVR found a proponent of evolution who classifies their religious
standpoint as 'evolutionist'
My question: Can anyone find me JUST ONE proponent of intelligent design
theory, ANYWHERE in the world, who is NOT an ardent Christian?
Surely, if this is really science and not religion, there is at least one
group who have come out and said "Look, we're not religious, but we have
objectively examined this and it does have genuine scientific merit."???
hersheyhv
Dave wrote:
> I can (and have) found proponents of evolution belonging to a wide range of
> religions, groups and schools of thought, including: Christians, Hindus,
> Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics
>
> I have NEVR found a proponent of evolution who classifies their religious
> standpoint as 'evolutionist'
>
> My question: Can anyone find me JUST ONE proponent of intelligent design
> theory, ANYWHERE in the world, who is NOT an ardent Christian?
Raelians, fundamentalist hindus, fundamentalist jews, fundamentalist
islamicists, (note the common feature) even the occassional
self-proclaimed 'agnostic'.
Dave
lines of Dembski and Behe's claims, as an example. I am familiar with
Raelian claims, but they do not claim empirical evidence for Rael's
statements in his writings. The fundamentalists you mention tend to accept a
much more crude form of direct creation over ID.
Dave
other religions that do try to advocated ID as legitimate science, has any
atheist/agnostic group or individual scientist (basically anyone who is not
fervently religious and thus pre-disposed to acceptance of ID), ever come
out and said that they believe there is genuine scientific merit to ID
theory, on the basis of the theory alone?
hersheyhv
Dave wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original post....I meant ID along the
> lines of Dembski and Behe's claims, as an example. I am familiar with
> Raelian claims, but they do not claim empirical evidence for Rael's
> statements in his writings. The fundamentalists you mention tend to accept a
> much more crude form of direct creation over ID.
So do Dembski and Behe. They just use the phrase "ID" to hide their
true intentions.
noctiluca
Dave wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original post....I meant ID along the
> lines of Dembski and Behe's claims, as an example.
David Berlinski. James Barham maybe. And Wells is a Moonie of course.
But Howard made the salient point. Even Dembski and Behe have
significant differences between them regarding the way they formulate
their ID concepts. We can't even really pick a perspective and list its
tenets because ID, in any of its incarnations, is mostly a description
of what people dislike about evolution. That leaves the tent wide open.
Robert
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
No offense, but what you're suggesting is like looking for a Darwinist
before the publication of "Origin of Species". There is no comparative
work in ID. It hasn't happened, yet.
In fact, Behe, Dembski, et. al. are not motivated to produce such a
work, because economically it's much more profitable to book sales to
release data a little at a time.
What you're having a poblem with is "the tease" used to sell these
books are directed at Christians, so that they'll buy the books, even
if in the final chapter it has really nothing to do with their specific
goals. Selling books exclusively to scientists is highly unlikely to be
profitable (I guess they could have submerged their data into science
fiction or murder mysteries, but those are probably deeper holes to
climb out of than a simple misdirection towards deity).
Furthermore, the crux of the argument isn't evolution, but causation.
Random chance never works out to be random when analyzed by
mathematicians. It doesn't exist. There is no such thing as random
chance, so scientifically, something other than random chance must
account for causation.
Science is not unaware of this fact, so they decided to buy time before
admitting it with "the Mars Meteor". The Mars Meteor suggests
infestation as causation. If you're happy with TofE hanging on the
organic fly-off of an impact on Mars negotiating the hazards of travel
to Earth, surviving entry into the atmosphere and causing life to
appear for the first time, then there goes Occam's Razor flying out the
window. Don't worry, it's just a temporary rationalization until
someone comes up with a better one.
JTG 1/30/06
Frank J
Dave wrote:
> I can (and have) found proponents of evolution belonging to a wide range of
> religions, groups and schools of thought, including: Christians, Hindus,
> Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics
>
> I have NEVR found a proponent of evolution who classifies their religious
> standpoint as 'evolutionist'
>
> My question: Can anyone find me JUST ONE proponent of intelligent design
> theory, ANYWHERE in the world, who is NOT an ardent Christian?
What's with this "Christian" obsession? Muslims and Orthodox Jews are
probably more likely than Christians to fall for ID pseudoscience or
the related creationism.
Granted, the professional anti-evolutionists are mostly Christians, but
that's probably more an "accident" of demographics and political
affiliation than anything else. Besides, Michael Behe is a Catholic,
which Protestant Fundamentalists ususlly consider not a "true"
Christian.
And then there's the agnostic David Berlisnki, the Raelians, etc.
>
> Surely, if this is really science and not religion, there is at least one
> group who have come out and said "Look, we're not religious, but we have
> objectively examined this and it does have genuine scientific merit."???
That has in fact been been the line of many TO regulars over the years,
most notably Charlie Wagner. Of course they have not followed through
on the scientific merit.
Dave
> before the publication of "Origin of Species". There is no comparative
> work in ID. It hasn't happened, yet.
No offense taken - this is a valid comment that I am happy to read and
consider.
> In fact, Behe, Dembski, et. al. are not motivated to produce such a
> work, because economically it's much more profitable to book sales to
> release data a little at a time.
Again, I hadn't considered this, another worthy point.
> What you're having a poblem with is "the tease" used to sell these
> books are directed at Christians, so that they'll buy the books, even
> if in the final chapter it has really nothing to do with their specific
> goals. Selling books exclusively to scientists is highly unlikely to be
> profitable (I guess they could have submerged their data into science
> fiction or murder mysteries, but those are probably deeper holes to
> climb out of than a simple misdirection towards deity).
>
> Furthermore, the crux of the argument isn't evolution, but causation.
> Random chance never works out to be random when analyzed by
> mathematicians. It doesn't exist. There is no such thing as random chance,
> so scientifically, something other than random chance must account for
> causation.
I wholly agree - I often cite to people as an example of there being no such
thing as random, this little observation of a die being rolled:
You roll a die. You come up a 6. You think that this result was down to
chance, and that you had a one in six chance of getting a six.
Unfortunately, this is too simplified. Sure, roll the die again and you
probably won't get a 6...but is the process random? No. The factors that
determined what number came up when you rolled included, but were not
necessarily limited to, the surface you roll on, the angle and force of your
throw, the angle and force at which the die hits the surface, air pressure,
air movement, etc., etc. - although you cannot do it with a die, IF you
could replicate EXACTLY the same conditions of the first roll, right down to
the molecular level, you would get EXACTLY the same result.
An experiment you can try: In computer programming, we must set a random
seed before we generate random numbers. Invariably, we set the seed to be
the current date and time, because this guarantees a different seed EVERY
time the program runs and this results in different 'random' numbers being
generated. If you make a computer program and set the seed to a static
value, say 5 for example, you will get exactly the same 'random' numbers
thrown back at you every time the program runs.
Although the computing example is down to the way in which computers
generate 'random' numbers as human-desgined machines, I fell it serves well
as a parallel example to my dice scenario; exactly the same situation,
exactly the same result. So much for 'true randomness'....
Dave
Christianity because I have yet to see Muslims, Hindus, etc. trying to push
their religious doctrine on to school science classes.
The only people I have known to do this, be they crude creationists such as
Kent Hovind, or the more subtle creation advocates such as Behe, going under
the banner of 'ID theory' ARE Christians, mostly protestant.
Having read all the posted answers, I believe my question was inappropriate
because it rested on what I now know to be a false assumption on my part;
that ID theory has been unified among its proponents into something coherent
in structure. Evidently, this is not the case with ID.
Frank J
Not sure what their religious motivations are, if any, but Schwabe and
Senapathy
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
propose hypotheses that deny not only evolution, but also common
descent - and more directly than ID does. Though conveniently, these
"alternatives" are also based on "weakneses" in evolution rather than
on their own merits. But these "naturalistic" positions, even though
scientific failures, are very inconvenient to the neat little false
dichotomy that IDers and creationists depend on. So one rarely hears an
IDer refer to them.
As IDers neatly avoid saying what their alternative is, apart from
"something was designed at some time", it is unlikely that they
personally believe what their audience will infer. Which is usually
YEC, or in the case of smarter audiences, OEC. Religious or not, theirs
is an extreme political position that probably fears that the masses
cannot handle the truth of evolution:
Frank J
Dave wrote:
> Thank you all for your thoughts on my question. Yes, my focus is on
> Christianity because I have yet to see Muslims, Hindus, etc. trying to push
> their religious doctrine on to school science classes.
I just read something the other day about a Hindu group trying to
tinker with evolution education. As for the others, give them time.
>
> The only people I have known to do this, be they crude creationists such as
> Kent Hovind, or the more subtle creation advocates such as Behe, going under
> the banner of 'ID theory' ARE Christians, mostly protestant.
>
> Having read all the posted answers, I believe my question was inappropriate
> because it rested on what I now know to be a false assumption on my part;
> that ID theory has been unified among its proponents into something coherent
> in structure. Evidently, this is not the case with ID.
It was an honest question. We like them.
What I really dislike is how, more than ever, people try to hide their
differences in anti-evolution position and strategy (e.g. Hindu
creationism has an even older earth than evolution) for the sake of the
"big tent." Granted, some anti-evolution groups, especially AIG, do
object to the "don't ask, don't tell" ID strategy, but not too loudly.
noctiluca
It is also important to remember that while the vast majority of ID
proponents are Christian, the vast majority of Christians are not ID
proponents. Opposing one is not equivalent with opposing the other.
In other words, it seems pretty clear to me that support for ID doesn't
develop out of Christianity or religion as much as it develops out of a
particular mindset that is drawn to some rather shallow constructions
of Christianity or religion.
Robert
hersheyhv
noctiluca wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original post....I meant ID along the
> > lines of Dembski and Behe's claims, as an example.
>
> David Berlinski. James Barham maybe. And Wells is a Moonie of course.
>
> But Howard made the salient point. Even Dembski and Behe have
> significant differences between them regarding the way they formulate
> their ID concepts. We can't even really pick a perspective and list its
> tenets because ID, in any of its incarnations, is mostly a description
> of what people dislike about evolution. That leaves the tent wide open.
ID is the "scientific" proposition that some unspecified intelligent
something did something at some unspecified time and some unspecified
place by some unspecified mechanism to produce whatever the person
proposing this wants to explain. Personally I find this proposition a
bit hard to subject to any sort of test. But doing any specifying
would reduce the size of the tent.
Zero
an...@sci.sci
> mathematicians. It doesn't exist. There is no such thing as random
So you are claiming that all of quantum mechanics is wrong?
.
an...@sci.sci
> chance, and that you had a one in six chance of getting a six.
> Unfortunately, this is too simplified. Sure, roll the die again and you
> probably won't get a 6...but is the process random? No. The factors that
> determined what number came up when you rolled included, but were not
> necessarily limited to, the surface you roll on, the angle and force of your
> throw, the angle and force at which the die hits the surface, air pressure,
> air movement, etc., etc. - although you cannot do it with a die, IF you
> could replicate EXACTLY the same conditions of the first roll, right down to
> the molecular level, you would get EXACTLY the same result.
That argument is mostly valid. Indeed most of the time when you roll a
die, the initial situation is sufficient to determine with extremely
high likelihood what number will come up top when the die comes to
rest. Only very very rarely will the die end resting on an edge, after
which truly random factors will determine which way it finally falls.
But that's a strawman argument here. Just because rolling a die is
deterministic (in numeric outcome) most of the time doesn't mean that
every process in nature is likewise deterministic most of the time.
Your argument seems to be that since one thing is non-random,
everything else is likewise non-random.
> In computer programming, we must set a random seed before we generate
> random numbers.
Those are not random numbers, they are pseudo-random numbers.
(More correctly put: The sequence of numbers is pseudo-random.)
When we write the program that generates the sequence, we know
precisely how they are generated, and if two computers run the same
algorithm with the same initial conditions in parallel, but one
slightly earlier than the other, the earlier one can predict the later
one with 100% accuracy. This is a totally contrived strawman if you
expect us to believe that since this deliberately constructed 100%
predictable algorithm somehow proves that everything in nature is 100%
predictable.
.
Dave
> (More correctly put: The sequence of numbers is pseudo-random.)
> When we write the program that generates the sequence, we know
> precisely how they are generated, and if two computers run the same
> algorithm with the same initial conditions in parallel, but one
> slightly earlier than the other, the earlier one can predict the later
> one with 100% accuracy. This is a totally contrived strawman if you
> expect us to believe that since this deliberately constructed 100%
> predictable algorithm somehow proves that everything in nature is 100%
> predictable.
> .
>
you failed to notice I stated clearly in my first post that I know computers
are human-designed and the numbers not truly random, it was just a sort of
metaphor to illustrate the idea that with exactly the same energy / matter
flow repeated in a given scenario, you would get exactly the same result. I
don't claim to be an expert in randomness or chaos or advanced mathematics /
physics and if you can correct me on the flaws in my argument or further my
understanding of the concept of randomness, I would much appreciate it.
But to accuse me of proposing a strawman argument - I am proposing no
argument at all and I am CERTAINLY not trying to assert everything in nature
is predictable, but I guess it mght be if you were somehow able to know and
understand the state of all varying factors at once. I was simply saying I
agree with the idea that events are not truly 'random', though they
certainly can be arbitrary. Again, if this is not a wise position to hold, I
invite you to explain why. I have no position I am trying to defend, I seek
only to further my knowledge.
Zero
is the
question.
Jim Lovejoy
news:1138639413....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Dave wrote:
>> I can (and have) found proponents of evolution belonging to a wide
>> range of religions, groups and schools of thought, including:
>> Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics
>>
>> I have NEVR found a proponent of evolution who classifies their
>> religious standpoint as 'evolutionist'
>>
>> My question: Can anyone find me JUST ONE proponent of intelligent
>> design theory, ANYWHERE in the world, who is NOT an ardent Christian?
>>
>> Surely, if this is really science and not religion, there is at least
>> one group who have come out and said "Look, we're not religious, but
>> we have objectively examined this and it does have genuine scientific
>> merit."???
>
> No offense, but what you're suggesting is like looking for a Darwinist
> before the publication of "Origin of Species". There is no comparative
> work in ID. It hasn't happened, yet.
It's been 200 years since Paley published his book with his "Watchmaker"
analogy.
And his work isn't the first claim of intelligent design by a long shot.
So how long are we supposed to wait until they decide to do some science?
Deadrat
<jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1138639413....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave wrote:
> > I can (and have) found proponents of evolution belonging to a wide range of
> > religions, groups and schools of thought, including: Christians, Hindus,
> > Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics
> >
> > I have NEVR found a proponent of evolution who classifies their religious
> > standpoint as 'evolutionist'
> >
> > My question: Can anyone find me JUST ONE proponent of intelligent design
> > theory, ANYWHERE in the world, who is NOT an ardent Christian?
> >
> > Surely, if this is really science and not religion, there is at least one
> > group who have come out and said "Look, we're not religious, but we have
> > objectively examined this and it does have genuine scientific merit."???
>
> No offense, but what you're suggesting is like looking for a Darwinist
> before the publication of "Origin of Species". There is no comparative
> work in ID. It hasn't happened, yet.
And I think we can be certain that it won't ever happen. That's because
IDiocy is a political movement, an attempt to circumvent current US law
and gain an entry for religion in public school classes.
>
> In fact, Behe, Dembski, et. al. are not motivated to produce such a
> work, because economically it's much more profitable to book sales to
> release data a little at a time.
This implies that they are "releasing data." They're not. They're producing
religious propaganda. Nothing would boost book sales like an important
scientific discovery that backed IDiocy. Fame and fortune would attend any
scientists who overturned evolution. But the IDiots aren't doing any science.
> What you're having a poblem with is "the tease" used to sell these
> books are directed at Christians, so that they'll buy the books, even
> if in the final chapter it has really nothing to do with their specific
> goals. Selling books exclusively to scientists is highly unlikely to be
> profitable (I guess they could have submerged their data into science
> fiction or murder mysteries, but those are probably deeper holes to
> climb out of than a simple misdirection towards deity).
>
> Furthermore, the crux of the argument isn't evolution, but causation.
> Random chance never works out to be random when analyzed by
> mathematicians. It doesn't exist. There is no such thing as random
> chance, so scientifically, something other than random chance must
> account for causation.
I believe this to be false. Please tell us that "something other than random
chance" that causes the decay of U-235 atoms.
>
> Science is not unaware of this fact, so they decided to buy time before
> admitting it with "the Mars Meteor". The Mars Meteor suggests
> infestation as causation. If you're happy with TofE hanging on the
> organic fly-off of an impact on Mars negotiating the hazards of travel
> to Earth, surviving entry into the atmosphere and causing life to
> appear for the first time, then there goes Occam's Razor flying out the
> window. Don't worry, it's just a temporary rationalization until
> someone comes up with a better one.
I'm not sure I follow the above paragraph, but it seems to be about
abiogenesis. The TofE isn't "hanging" on any particular theory of the
origin of life.
Deadrat
> JTG 1/30/06
>
theSalamander
random chance" that causes the decay of U-235 atoms."
Radioactive decay: No cause or no known cause?
I've wondered this for some time...but I don't know a huge amount about
physics and quantum physics. I have heard that there is no identifiable
cause for decay and that some quantum particles spontaneously drop in and
out of existence...if these thinga are true and need no cause, surely that
damages the 'everything has a cause, so there must have been a first cause
that had no cause, which must have been God" argument??
theSalamander
religious predisposition? What ID ideas / arguments do you feel have real
scientific merit?
--
"Zero" <hereo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1138655705.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, Me
>
Frank J
theSalamander wrote:
> I would be interested to see your reasons for accepting ID without any
> religious predisposition? What ID ideas / arguments do you feel have real
> scientific merit?
Careful, that leaves the door open for the usual song and dance.
You must specify that those "scientific" ideas be supported on their
own merits, and not on any perceived weaknesses or strawman arguments
against evolution. And never let them get away without stating what the
designer did and when, that would make their "theory" something other
than "virtual evolution."
Zero
>I would be interested to see your reasons for accepting ID without any
religious predisposition? What ID ideas / arguments do you feel have
real
scientific merit?
Sal, in reality, I find that chaos is natural. Order is "mind made".
Every living thing is symetrical. That has to carry some weight.
Nick Roberts
"Dave" <da...@gebler.co.uk> wrote:
Nuclear decay is a quantum effect, and totally random. To replicate the
exact state prior to decay would be a contravention of Uncertainty
Principle.
As it is next-to-trivial to make an effect at a much grosser scale
dependant on the timing of such a decay, it is possible to create a
truly random die roll or whatever else you like. Including
Schrodinger's Cat.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Nick Roberts
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
> Furthermore, the crux of the argument isn't evolution, but causation.
> Random chance never works out to be random when analyzed by
> mathematicians. It doesn't exist.
You've said this before, it was drivel then and it's drivel now.
Why would mathematicians have two distinct but related field dealing
with the same (according to you, non-existant) phenomenon?
And if it were non-existant, why aren't mathematicians breaking the
banks at Monte Carlo and Las Vegas every day?
> There is no such thing as random chance, so scientifically, something
> other than random chance must account for causation.
As your premise is inaccurate, your conclusion does not follow.