Commentary: No faith in ID
Jason Spaceman
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Palos, Contributing Writer
Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: Opinion
Over the course of the past three weeks or so, The Daily Campus has been
publishing numerous articles regarding Intelligent Design. Most of what has
to be said deals with whether or not ID is a scientific argument. I would
like to add to the list of why ID is not a scientific argument, but with a
different approach. I am going to show the faith in the ID argument that
makes it no more scientific then the flying unicorn in the sky.
I attended the Lee Strobel Conference this past weekend and I was not
surprised by what I heard. Lee Strobel used the same evidence any typical
creationist would: complexity of DNA, the complexity of a cell, the precise
location of the Earth, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.
Most would say that all of the above come from science, and I would agree,
but what Strobel and the other scientists do is nothing but stating facts,
such as "that pen is red" or "your hair is blonde."
Stating facts is not science; it is merely stating facts. Using the
scientific method to verify a hypothesis that can be tested in the material
sense is science-this has been said many times in the past weeks. You
cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense. Therefore, you
cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the complexity of
the universe and call it God. This is why there is faith, no? Why does
Strobel even need to prove that there is an intelligent designer and that
designer is God? Anyways, time for the new approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2007/04/24/Opinion/No.Faith.In.Id-2876155.shtml
or http://tinyurl.com/32aly7
J. Spaceman
alwaysaskingquestions
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:f0ki8e$v1u$1...@news.datemas.de...
[...]
> You
> cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense. Therefore, you
> cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the complexity
> of
> the universe and call it God. This is why there is faith, no? Why does
> Strobel even need to prove that there is an intelligent designer and that
> designer is God?
That is a fundamental (no pun intended) fault line in ID and/or Creation
Science. Faith is belief in what cannot be proved; as soon as you start
looking for proofs of that faith you have de facto eliminated faith.
Bobby Bryant
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> writes:
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Palos, Contributing Writer
> Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: Opinion
>
> Over the course of the past three weeks or so, The Daily Campus has
> been publishing numerous articles regarding Intelligent Design. Most
> of what has to be said deals with whether or not ID is a scientific
> argument. I would like to add to the list of why ID is not a
> scientific argument, but with a different approach. I am going to
> show the faith in the ID argument that makes it no more scientific
> then the flying unicorn in the sky.
Someone hasn't heard of the FSM.
Or maybe we're already getting syncretic FSM-IPU heresies.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
I suspect that for many the pseudoscience is indeed a prop for faith,
but for others it's just a convenient argument that the public schools
shouldn't be educating children on topics that will keep them from
adopting the same faith.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
ID advocates have realized that faith is worthless. now if only they
removed those presuppositions that it once gave them.
Desertphile
> surprised by what I heard. Lee Strobel used the same evidence any typical
> creationist would: complexity of DNA, the complexity of a cell, the precise
> location of the Earth, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.
> Most would say that all of the above come from science, and I would agree,
> but what Strobel and the other scientists do is nothing but stating facts,
> such as "that pen is red" or "your hair is blonde."
>
> Stating facts is not science; it is merely stating facts. Using the
> scientific method to verify a hypothesis that can be tested in the material
> sense is science-this has been said many times in the past weeks. You
> cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense. Therefore, you
> cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the complexity of
> the universe and call it God. This is why there is faith, no? Why does
> Strobel even need to prove that there is an intelligent designer and that
> designer is God? Anyways, time for the new approach.
"intelligent design" Creationism: he just pretended to attack the
evolutionary sciences. How very Creationist of him.
Looking up the kook via the Google internet search engine, and
then viewing his occult web site (http://www.leestrobel.com/), I
could not find *ANY* information on why anyone would accept his
opinions on the subject of cosmology, biology, geology,
anthropology, and physics (all of which he pretends to write and
speak authoratatively upon) over the opinions of scientists
actually working in those fields.
More to the point, I was unable to find any reason why his
opinions on the subjects he writes and speaks about should be
considered any more than the opinions of, for example, a
plumber's, or a carpenter's, or a goat herder's opinions. His only
"training," if one can call it that, is in Fundamentalist
Christian occultism and journalism: one might just as well consult
an astrologer, palm reader, or necromancer on the subjects and get
the same confidence in their opinions as what Rev Strobel
provides.
Science ought to be left to scientists: it is absurd to listen to
an occultist like Strobel give his opinions on science.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Denis Loubet
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:f0ki8e$v1u$1...@news.datemas.de...
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Palos, Contributing Writer
> Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: Opinion
>
> Stating facts is not science; it is merely stating facts. Using the
> scientific method to verify a hypothesis that can be tested in the
> material
> sense is science-this has been said many times in the past weeks. You
> cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense.
There I have to argue. If the supernatural thing one is proposing to test
for is defined as interacting with the material world, then you should
certainly be able to test for it by detecting its effects on the material
world.
Granted, the falsification rate appears to be 100%, but the principle is
sound.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
bi...@juno.com
> That is a fundamental (no pun intended) fault line in ID and/or Creation
> Science. Faith is belief in what cannot be proved; as soon as you start
> looking for proofs of that faith you have de facto eliminated faith.
This is wrong, because it is based on a false premise.
The reality is, everything we believe, including science, is based on
faith. Science is based on blind faith in:
1. The validity of empricism (our five senses can make valid
observations)
2. The validity of human reason (our brain can figure things out
correctly)
3. The universality of scientific laws (if a scientific law works in
one place, it presumably works elsewhere)
4. et cetera.....
Science is heavily based on blind faith. Nevertheless, we say that
science "proves" things. Yet science "proves" things only to a certain
degree. And the degree to which science "proves" things is considered
"good enough" by most people.
Likewise with religion and Creationism and Intelligent Design. Each of
them "proves" things to a certain level, exactly like science. Beyond
that level, faith is required. Science is no different in any ultimate
sense from these. The only question is, where precisely do we draw the
line where "faith" begins. That line is rather arbitrary. One man's
"faith" is another man's "proof."
Because of this, in an ultimate, epistemological sense, faith is 100
percent of what every last one of us believes. This applies even to
the Cartesian Cogito. And it applies especially to those who place
their faith in science. (And I include myself as one of the faithful
sheep who believe, by faith, in science.)
Steven J.
<bi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177480863....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> That is a fundamental (no pun intended) fault line in ID and/or Creation
>> Science. Faith is belief in what cannot be proved; as soon as you start
>> looking for proofs of that faith you have de facto eliminated faith.
>
> This is wrong, because it is based on a false premise.
>
> The reality is, everything we believe, including science, is based on
> faith. Science is based on blind faith in:
> 1. The validity of empricism (our five senses can make valid
> observations)
> 2. The validity of human reason (our brain can figure things out
> correctly)
>
to be redefining it to mean "belief in evidence," or "belief that evidence
is any reason to believe a thing." It is, at least, a rather misleading use
of the term. You are a Christian creationist, are you not? That is, you
are assuming that we have some reason, even before deciding whether or not
to believe the Bible's claims, that there are Bibles, that we can tell them
from broomsticks or blueberry pies, and that our brains are sufficient to
figure out that the Bible makes claims, and even to discern what those
claims are. That is, the first two things that, according to you, science
takes on blind faith, are things that Christianity equally must take on what
you insist is "blind faith." Indeed, they are things anyone, with any
belief system, needs to take on this alleged "blind faith" in order to
justify getting out of bed in the morning (or even to conclude that it is
morning and that he is in bed).
>
> 3. The universality of scientific laws (if a scientific law works in
> one place, it presumably works elsewhere)
>
There's also not much point in doing engineering, or, for that matter, in
getting out of bed in the morning. If the laws of nature that worked
yesterday in your neighborhood might work differently tomorrow down the
street, well, that makes it rather hard to make any plans for the future, or
to assume that anything you learn will ever be relevant to anything. To
postulate, in order to save the literal sense of some holy book, that the
laws of nature were different six thousand years ago, is exactly as
reasonable as postulating, to save the reputation of some friend, that they
were different earlier this evening in some bar down the street.
>
> 4. et cetera.....
>
> Science is heavily based on blind faith. Nevertheless, we say that
> science "proves" things. Yet science "proves" things only to a certain
> degree. And the degree to which science "proves" things is considered
> "good enough" by most people.
>
> Likewise with religion and Creationism and Intelligent Design. Each of
> them "proves" things to a certain level, exactly like science. Beyond
> that level, faith is required. Science is no different in any ultimate
> sense from these. The only question is, where precisely do we draw the
> line where "faith" begins. That line is rather arbitrary. One man's
> "faith" is another man's "proof."
>
(well, okay, we have Ray Martinez, so let me amend my request: a creationist
who is neither an epistomological nihilist or a raving loon)? Most people
think it is worthwhile to draw the line between views that are supported by
the evidence, and views that are supported by, variously, arguments from
ignorance, arguments from inappropriate authority, and arguments from
unsupported assertion. Intelligent design "proves" nothing, except that
people desperate for "scientific" evidence that evolution is false will
accept the most egregious and silly "god of the gaps" arguments.
Creationism proves nothing; the common creationist "we all have the same
evidence, we just interpret it different ways" position is basically a claim
that nothing can be proved at all, so "blind faith" is as good as fossil and
DNA evidence.
>
> Because of this, in an ultimate, epistemological sense, faith is 100
> percent of what every last one of us believes. This applies even to
> the Cartesian Cogito. And it applies especially to those who place
> their faith in science. (And I include myself as one of the faithful
> sheep who believe, by faith, in science.)
>
exist? Is there a word for the next step beyond solipsism ("I deny the
existence of anything beyond myself, and am not too sure of the existence of
myself")? Or do you merely accept, on faith, that you think, but
acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence for this proposition?
>
-- Steven J.