KWSN Orbiting Fortress

[LanDroid]

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]

Nice article.

[editorial]
I often wonder if the ID folk have really thought about what they are trying to do. The scientific process requires a null and an alternate hypothesis. You assume the null, and try to show the alternate, and so advance knowledge of what is.

So, if you want to argue in favor of ID, do you assume that God doesn't exist, and find evidence that she does? Or, do you assume God does exist and try to prove that she doesn't? I'm not sure those in favor if ID would appreciate either option.

The real answer is that ID is a matter of faith, not science or reason. Trying to apply scientific reasoning to prove your faith is self defeating, and rather silly. This is not the first time religion and science have clashed over such an issue; The was once a man named Galileo Galilei who got in a disagreement with the Catholic Church about the Earth not being the center of the Universe. Long story short: Galileo was on the right track, the church got over it, and people still have faith. The evolution/ID argument is simply the latest version of an old story.

Besides, God's much to clever to let us find the proof.

Dan
[/editorial]

[End of Days]

Poor analogies used here. The Bible never spoke about the earth being the center of the universe (though recent discoveries by Hubble show that it is close), that was a "belief" espoused by the church, where as the Bible does most specifically speak of creation and creation is a cornerstone to the Christian faith. Without a perfect creation and man's disobedience to God & fall into sin there is no need of a Savior and the entire Bible falls into question. Furthermore, evolution is a theory that does indeed have many flaws; the main flaw being that as a theory it is constantly changing, there is little or no consistency, what in one year is sworn upon as “gospel truth” in another year is eventually disproved and then ignored and dismissed as not important anyway. For example; in the Scopes Monkey trial, every single point of "proof" of evolution offered in the court has since been disproved, abandoned and no longer taught as part of the theory. The three main systems used by evolutionists are natural selection, microevolution and macroevolution. The only one of those three in dispute is macroevolution. Macroevolution is also the only one of the three that fails or does not follow established scientific method. Creation or ID cannot be scientifically proven, but neither can macroevolution. Another example; if you ever look at what are called phylogenetic trees, you will see that the known and proven “links” are well documented and explained by natural selection and microevolution. Where macroevolution should come into play connecting the various species the “trees” are nothing but gaps and incomplete branches with absolutely no fossil record or any other type of physical proof. To me the saddest thing about this whole debate or controversy is that there are several thousand degreed scientists around the country that see both ID and macroevolution as improvable theories but because they do not fall into step with the status quote are squashed, blackballed and ridiculed. This indicates to me that evolution is as much a “faith based” belief as is ID or creation. When a main aspect of a theory is totally unproven yet any question of it is considered heresy and those posing the questions are all but crucified that is a fanatical type of faith not truth in any form.

[jonnyv]

There is a key difference between ID and macroevolution that you're missing. Given the proper evidence, macroevolution could either be confirmed or shown to be false. ID admits no such evidence. There is no evidence that could ever falsify ID. This makes ID distinctly NOT science. I don't really care whether anyone believes ID, but it most certainly is not science and should not be passed off as such.
_________________
KWSN Forum Admin
Founding Member of the Migratory Coconuts

[End of Days]

I had a couple more paragraphs typed out but then reminded myself that this is not a religion discussion thread so...
Your statement is true. It is the vast complexity that evolution cannot explain that ID folks point to as the proof, particularly those things that can be classified as irreducibly complex. But beyond that, I doubt greatly that we will ever look into a microscope and see a signature on a cell wall. But how could the presence or actions of a spiritual being in a material universe ever be proven or disproven? The Bible itself is the only material evidence (and it was writtneby men), it and Christ is God’s “communication” with us, and its own passages say that it cannot be fully known and understood without faith and without the Holy Spirit indwelling us and leading us to the truths it contains; somewhat of a paradox isn’t it.

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]

I stand by my analogy for it's intended purpose; Faith and Reason have clashed before, and will continue to do so.

Does evolution theory have flaws? Sure, and so what? Science can't adequately explain gravity either, but I don't see people throwing themselves off of buildings in protest that our understanding is incomplete. Like the theory of Gravity, the theory of evolution best fits the available evidence. Charles Darwin hit upon one of the greatest scientific ideas in history. Many scientific theories come and go, but the really good ones stick around, and are refined over time. The science of evolution is still being refined.

The ridicule heaped upon ID and it's supporters is no less than any scientist would receive for putting forward unsupportable ideas. That's not unfair, that's how the system works (Cold fusion would be a good example). If ID wants to be a science, then it needs to play by the rules of science. And, as I said before, trying to prove faith through reason is futile.

There is no paradox here, only confusion about what science is telling us. Perhaps this is an indication that we need to do a better job teaching the scientific method in our schools. Faith can guide us in matters where Reason cannot, and that is its purpose. Reason can teach us about the world we live in, and that is its purpose. Knowing when to use our Reason and when to trust our Faith, is wisdom.

One final comment: I have no problems with ID as a belief, but trying to call ID a science is just wrong, and a disservice to both Faith and Reason.

Dan

[LanDroid]

"Macroevolution is also the only one of the three that fails or does not follow established scientific method. " End of Days

Wrong. Speciation has been observed directly.

"But how could the presence or actions of a spiritual being in a material universe ever be proven or disproven? " End of Days

Your rhetorical question proves ID should not be taught as Science.

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]

Gotta get me one.

ni! i!u

[jonnyv]

Yeah...where can we get those?
_________________
KWSN Forum Admin
Founding Member of the Migratory Coconuts

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]

[End of Days]

Love the T-Shirts!

BTW, here is a web site on ID that for some reason is a favorite of mine

http://www.arn.org/

And I would be remiss if I didn't include a second favorite

http://www.ideacenter.org/

Nice chatting with you folks even as breif as it was.

Dennis Wagner

[Cohiba]

Call it what you or rename it till it sounds politicaly correct it still is what it is, a christian/religious view on creation. If it gets back into schools i think i'll start a campaign to include the Hindu version of creation to be tought along ID / darwin..


Ohh maybe instead of health and human relations {sex ed} maybe we can get the kama sutra taught..
_________________
Smoke-em if you got-em I do..

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]

[Cohiba]

[Sir Prize]

So how about an ET who likes designing crazy organisms?

Maybe we are all an Alpha Centauri computer game

Or a Venusian Research Institute?


Sir_Prize

PS I am a Christian with a sense of humour
_________________
I speak Esperanto like a native - Spike Milligan

[Michelle]

My 14 y.o. boy-child's theory is that we were 'planted' here by some aliens from another planet. He doesn't specify which one.
Future looney in the making?
_________________
My brain hurts.
Jammy's Brain Donor.



[img]http://www.katrinashome.com/KWSN_Michelle_counter.php[/img]

[jbyram2]

[jonnyv]

[Cohiba]

[Sir Hamster of Elderberry]