scientific proof of god

Orion

ChilleR~ wrote:

Does anyone having any opinions or comments about the idea of Intelligent Design? I think the idea of ID fits into this topic quite easily. Read into a few of these reports at this website:http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

ID is just creationism by another name. No basis in fact. It's a religious teaching pretending not to be.

bus77

"My God, it's full of stars!"

Count all the stars and you will know the secrets of the black rectangle.

Son Goku

Because the universe is changing, expanding, varying etc. Time affects it, it is not a constant and therefore it could not have always been. an eternal thing would have to be static/constant and unaffected by time. The universe is OBVIOUSLY not that.

In General Relativity the universe itself is indeed a static/constant thing.
Time simply becomes a important coordinate choice in many areas of the universe as it is the direction in which stress-energy extends.

sceptre

bus77 wrote:

"My God, it's full of stars!"

Count all the stars and you will know the secrets of the black rectangle.

I've got 42. Can anyone see another?

akindoc wrote:

WHY do we have life? WHY does the universe exist.

"The principle of sufficient reason". There is a reason for everything, and that reason comes BEFORE everything that requires a reason. All questions and reasons and therefore all knowledge must reside in the first cause...the eternal constant.

See, here's the problem with your proof. This is the basis on which everything else effectively rests - there must be a reason why we're here. You could have just left out everything else as this is essentially the bedrock of the proof you've knocked out. And there's a leap of faith in there that makes it useless as acual "proof". Whether there's a God, an eternal constant or an eternal reason may or may not be so but the "proof" above adds nothing to the mix.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

I don't think philosophy should be taught in science class (and if it must, I want good philosopohy) and that is what teaching ID amounts to. You are making a tabloidesque ridiculous argument if you seriously claim that the empiricism will somehow be infected by the High School curricula of Kansas.

I think you are not really understanding the issues here.

It is not simply a question of allowing ID to be taught in a Kansas science class. If ID is allowed be taught, through legal force, or simple lack of anyone in the various school boards caring enought, then there becomes no precedence to stop any other non-scientific "philosophy" from also being taught in the class room.

The creationists know this, so do the scientific community, which is why this has at time become quite heated. Its not about Intelligent Design, it is about Intelligent Design being accepted as acceptable teaching material. If that happens, especially it it happens in at state wide level, the flood gates are open, because how can you argue that such and such and idea should not be taught in science class when you are already teaching a completely non-scientific idea.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Its not about Intelligent Design, it is about Intelligent Design being accepted as acceptable teaching material.

Even more accurately, its about ID being accepted as suitable teaching material in the science classroom.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Even more accurately, its about ID being accepted as suitable teaching material in the science classroom.

jc

Yeah should have added in the science classroom. Have no objection to ID being taught as an idea in philosophy or R.E class room

Orion

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah should have added in the science classroom. Have no objection to ID being taught as an idea in philosophy or R.E class room

I do. It's a religious teaching put forward by creationists. However they try to paint it doesn't mean it's not creationism by another name.

IMO religious education has no place in school - it's a personal thing and it's up to the parents to do it. This is one area where the Americans have it right - if you want your kid to get religious education send them to Sunday school.

Zombrex

Macros42 wrote:

I do. It's a religious teaching put forward by creationists. However they try to paint it doesn't mean it's not creationism by another name.

IMO religious education has no place in school - it's a personal thing and it's up to the parents to do it. This is one area where the Americans have it right - if you want your kid to get religious education send them to Sunday school.

Well not all R.E classes have to teach religion in a this-is-correct way. In my school we learnt about religions, not that they were correct or incorrect. My R.E teacher just taught us about what people around the world believed, in a non-bias fashion. I have no problem with the ideas behind ID, or creationism, being taught in a class like this, in a "this is what some people believe..." kinda way

Vangelis

How do you calculate the observable Universe to be 13 billion years old?
As for the unobservable, do you mean dark matter?

Mac, interesting input. Although speaking as a Christian I am not interested in evidence of creation if the finding of that evidence was intended to prove creation. But I am interested in alternative theories to the Big Bang and a complex existence we have today that has its roots in coincidence and mutations.

By the way, there is greater disagreement about the Big Bang's credibility these days. If I only knew more about that..

Crucifix

Vangelis wrote:

How do you calculate the observable Universe to be 13 billion years old?

That was Hubble's law I think....based on the movement of the galaxies around us.

Vangelis

And what makes Hubble's method for this credible? Because it suits the BB-theory? Well, the BB-theory is.. questionable. (I know that the BB-theory isn't that old!)

Son Goku

Vangelis wrote:

And what makes Hubble's method for this credible? Because it suits the BB-theory?

All observational evidence for the Big Bang is in no way based on the assumption that the Big Bang existed.
They're independant observations that lend support to it.

By the way, there is greater disagreement about the Big Bang's credibility these days. If I only knew more about that..

There are disagreements over certain fine details, but not over the Big Bang itself.

Well, the BB-theory is.. questionable.

Again, within its structure certain aspects are questionable, but not really the umbrella idea itself, unless you discount a lot of evidence.

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

And what makes Hubble's method for this credible?

You ask this question and then use guess-answers to cast doubt on its veracity.

Unfortunately, those guess-answers are utterly incorrect. This suggests that you would appear doing one of two things:

1) Attempting to discredit something (even if only in jest) by making unfounded assumptions about it.
2) Attempting to discredit something (even if only in jest) by making knowingly inaccurate and misleading claims about it.

Neither seems to be particularly enhancing to your case.

As for the uncertainty of the Big Bang...of course there is uncertainty. I would, however, point you at this excellent article before you go too far down that road.

Despite the humorousness of the article, the point it makes is very simple. Why is the scientific method, proof, etc. acceptable for virtually every aspect of an Intelligent Design / Creationist supporter's life except for one key one?

On that one, as you so have ably demonstrated with Hubble (unless you were trying to mislead), such an approach should be knocked before it has even been examined.

Doesn't this smack somewhat of double standards?

jc

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

How do you calculate the observable Universe to be 13 billion years old?

Lost of different ways, the main one being the observation using Hubble's theory, that the universe is expanding (and therefore must have expanded from one initial point)

Vangelis wrote:

As for the unobservable, do you mean dark matter?

The observable universe is as far as we can see ... but there is some evidence that there exists other universes along side ours that we cannot see

Vangelis wrote:

By the way, there is greater disagreement about the Big Bang's credibility these days. If I only knew more about that..

Not really ... there are alternative theorys put forward as to what exactly the Big Bang was, but most agree there was a Big Bang

Sam Vimes

the thing that annoys me most about such arguments is that the people say

"something had to create it since nothing comes from nothing, therefore you have to follow the rules in this book and believe in god/allah/zeus/jupiter/insert fictional character here
(depending on the era and location they come from)


and often but not always they add on:
and i'll kill you if you don't

Orion

Wicknight wrote:

Not really ... there are alternative theorys put forward as to what exactly the Big Bang was, but most agree there was a Big Bang

In fact the most recent one that is gathering support is based on string theory. There is a suggestion that a cosmic string collided with the singularity that was our universe causing the big bang. It appears such a cosmic string has be observed in our own galaxy this year.

Orion

Wicknight wrote:

Well not all R.E classes have to teach religion in a this-is-correct way. In my school we learnt about religions, not that they were correct or incorrect. My R.E teacher just taught us about what people around the world believed, in a non-bias fashion. I have no problem with the ideas behind ID, or creationism, being taught in a class like this, in a "this is what some people believe..." kinda way

You went to a progressive school and I applaud that kind of teaching. But the vast majority of schools in this country are run by the RC which teaches religion rather than world religious awareness.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Unfortunatly this opposition has been spun by the ID/Creationist crowd as evidence that the modern scientific communit are as unreasonable and as fanatical as a religion, that they won't even allow people with different opinions to express these opinion, and that they are out to destroy the idea of God. This "pro-ID" crowd (for want of a better description) are trying to force the scientific community to admit to considering ID through the threat that they are out of touch and arrogent.

I'm not sure its quite like that. I've a couple of friends in the US who put forward quite intelligent and interesting arguments for intelligent design. However, they do them outside the bracket of science.

I think what has happened is that creationists have latched on to the pre-exisiting "ID-crowd" and used it as a mallet to beat the evolutionists with.

From an ID point of view, both evolution and ID can co-exist with minor scientific conflict. The trap that the evolutionists and creationists have fallen into is that they argue within the realms of science which makes little sense because God can't be measured imperically (although I'd love to see someone try).

So what seems to have happened is that evolutionism, which has a history of being the crux of the creationist belief system, is being specifically targetted. This is more to do with the history of bad blood between darwinism and creationism than it has to do with anything else. In the bad old days, evolutionism attacked the very word of God and, whats more, it won, with the Pope accepting evolution in the 80's. It seems much ill will is harboured over this.

I saw one fantastic talk in Harvard that suggested that if one wished to single out an area of science to suggest the existence of God, then Biology would be the last place you'd look. Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics all have far more awe-inducing aspects that one could make and argument toward dvinity for.

Wicknight wrote:

They miss that point that it is not the idea of intelligent design that is the major problem, but it is the destruction of the scientific method that recongisning the idea as valid and worth considering would cause that is the problem the scientific community have with the idea of ID.

Well I think the main problem they have is with it being taught in science class. Philosophy and Sunday school are the places for such discussion, but I don't know too many US scientists who are against the actually idea of ID per se. In fact, one of the leading cell biologists in Emory supported debate on ID outside of the biology classroom, suggesting that its not a matter of the subject matter, but the time and the place for it.

Excelsior wrote:

Wicknight, I agree completely that ID is not science.

But when you talk of the scientific community and then words later of the ID crowd, forgive me for sensing a strong prejudice against advocates of ID.

I don't think philosophy should be taught in science class (and if it must, I want good philosopohy) and that is what teaching ID amounts to. You are making a tabloidesque ridiculous argument if you seriously claim that the empiricism will somehow be infected by the High School curricula of Kansas.

For the most part Excelsior, the majority of the US science community agrees with you. Which makes it ironic that you feel there is a prejudice. I think the perception you have, is pretty much the result of the hardliners at either end. Much as you conceed points contrary to what many creationists feel, don't feel that the same reasonable people don't make up the majority of the other camp. Fundamentalists are so because the shout loudest.

As for infecting High Schools (what a ghastly metaphor), well its all about the precident really. Religion and Education are constitutionally un-mixable in the US. In the states not governed by hardline evangelical fundamentalists, even mentioning divinity in an educational setting could earn you a repremand.

Allowing ID in, then sets the stall back. God is allowed in if he is assimilated into evolution. What else can he be assimilated into? Where does it stop. Science is really about sieving through facts, and unfortunately God doesn't qualify as a fact, at least not by scientific standards anyway. Which I guess, leads us right back to the crux of the argument.


(I just noticed, bonkey made most of these points already).

Oh and bonkey, be careful of whatyou put down to quantum (tempting as it always is).

The whole something from nothing argument is really only at our current level of understanding, which to be fair is limited. The chances are, there IS actually something there, they just can't even imagine what. Actually, come to think of it, Quantum has alot in common with evolution in so far as we can't see the whole picture or measure much of what we take as fact, but accept it as so because of the evidence suggesting it so and because, well, nothing else makes sense.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Well I think the main problem they have is with it being taught in science class. Philosophy and Sunday school are the places for such discussion, but I don't know too many US scientists who are against the actually idea of ID per se.

I agree .. sorry I should have phrased my sentence as a "valid scientific idea", rather than simply a valid idea. Like you say, the validity of ID lies outside of a class room.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

I agree .. sorry I should have phrased my sentence as a "valid scientific idea", rather than simply a valid idea. Like you say, the validity of ID lies outside of a class room.

You mean the validity of ID lies outside of a science classroom

The main weapon ID proponents really have is the claim that science seeks to mischaracterise it. Lets not help them in that regard

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

You mean the validity of ID lies outside of a science classroom

jc

LOL .. i give up ... i need a speech writer ..

bonkey

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

LOL ... why didn't we think of that before ...

sci·ence Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
What the Bible says

Problem solved, ID is now not anti-science

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

Well thats not entirely accurate, they specified that scientific definition was no longer restricted to "natural explanations", which is not strictly changing the definition rather than the provisions of the definintion.

Its a terrible result, but some hope can be taken in the result in Dover, Pennsylvania, where 8 school board members who implimented the proposal of teaching ID to 9th grade students(who just happened to be republican, although I'm sure thats just coincidence ) were voted out.

It just goes to show the distinct separation between the north and south still exists. But to my mind, the whole ID thing has gone political now and common sense no longer applies.

bonkey

psi wrote:

Well thats not entirely accurate,

How so?

they specified that scientific definition was no longer restricted to "natural explanations", which is not strictly changing the definition rather than the provisions of the definintion.

The result of which is that saying something is "scientific" today in the state of Kansas has a different implication or meaning to what it meant yesterday.

There are things which are classifiable in Kansas today as science which were not classifiable as such yesterday.

In short, they changed the meaning as it applies in Kansas.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when they realise that their "oh-so-clever" solution will open them to lawsuits from both genuine and crank groups seeking to have other theories accepted as scientific and therefore on the curriculum on the grounds that they meet the new requirements as equally as ID does.

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

Over on slashdot, someone has also pointed out that this may potentially mean that graduates of Kansas high schools will no longer be able to use their science qualifications to get into University of California (Berkeley), as it does not give credit for HS biology courses which teach ID.

Its a terrible result, but some hope can be taken in the result in Dover, Pennsylvania, where 8 school board members who implimented the proposal of teaching ID to 9th grade students(who just happened to be republican, although I'm sure thats just coincidence ) were voted out.

It depends on who/what they're replaced by. Its only a good sign if the new 8 are willing to reverse the decision. There will be plenty of ID supporters who have enough faith in their scientism that they'll happily put their beliefs first and career second if they can be reasonably sure their successor (should their support cost their job) won't reverse their decision.

Just on Dover though...that was another case where the definition of science (or the understanding of same) was altered to permit ID. During cross-examination, the person responsible (IIRC) for the redefinition was forced to admit that astrology met his definition of science.

It just goes to show the distinct separation between the north and south still exists.

Isn't Kansas in the middle?

But to my mind, the whole ID thing has gone political now and common sense no longer applies.

You'd have to go a long way back to find a time when ID wasn't political, if indeed that was ever the case. I'm also not sure common sense ever applied to this issue.

jc

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

How so?

The result of which is that saying something is "scientific" today in the state of Kansas has a different implication or meaning to what it meant yesterday.

There are things which are classifiable in Kansas today as science which were not classifiable as such yesterday.

In short, they changed the meaning as it applies in Kansas.

While I'm not defending the decision, I will say that one could argue that science changes the provisions of a definition regularly, without actually changing the definitions.

Oh sure, journos will report that science has "redefined what it means to........" (insert whatever) but usually this means nothing more than opening the door a little to include a previous unknown cell type, or species or reaction or whatever. Its not quite re-defining, Science is still science, it has just become more political.

By removing the word "natural" from the provisions of science, they have however, opened a can of worms. Because now every pseudoscientist ghosthunter, psychic etc will feel that they are entitled to their slice of the pie. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, and whether it works its way up to educational grant allocations.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when they realise that their "oh-so-clever" solution will open them to lawsuits from both genuine and crank groups seeking to have other theories accepted as scientific and therefore on the curriculum on the grounds that they meet the new requirements as equally as ID does.

Like I said, I reckon the real backlash will come when someone tries to get an educational scientific funding body to help them fly over the rainbow.

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

I reckon the lollypop guild of munchkin land might be first in line!

Over on slashdot, someone has also pointed out that this may potentially mean that graduates of Kansas high schools will no longer be able to use their science qualifications to get into University of California (Berkeley), as it does not give credit for HS biology courses which teach ID.

That *is* another big concern. I can actually see that as the way forward, restricting the accreditation of ID orientated courses. However, at the end of the day, the student suffers here and thats not productive to anyone.

It depends on who/what they're replaced by. Its only a good sign if the new 8 are willing to reverse the decision. There will be plenty of ID supporters who have enough faith in their scientism that they'll happily put their beliefs first and career second if they can be reasonably sure their successor (should their support cost their job) won't reverse their decision.

Oh don't worry the 8 are apparently liberal democrats who openly oppose ID.

Just on Dover though...that was another case where the definition of science (or the understanding of same) was altered to permit ID. During cross-examination, the person responsible (IIRC) for the redefinition was forced to admit that astrology met his definition of science.

As too did parapsychology if memory serves - I guess if it was good enough for Egon, Ray and Peter. Look, I'm not saying that any of this is good (I'm very opposed to ID being taught in US schools), however, I do think its being handled the wrong way by just about everyone.

Intelligent Designer knows (;)) I'm the last person in the world to preach about the folly of rushing in hotheaded to defend views, but unfortunately, this approach on both sides has gotten us to this point. Right now, someone needs to look at what the students want and make a case for whats best for them.

Isn't Kansas in the middle?

No, its the very north of "Jesusland"

You'd have to go a long way back to find a time when ID wasn't political, if indeed that was ever the case. I'm also not sure common sense ever applied to this issue.

Well it depends on what level of politics. I still believe that although this debate was raging for decades in one form or another, it only really made any progress one way or another when the conservative republicans took power in Washington.

Before that it was probably still salvagable and some common sense could have been applied. However, now its a national issue represented by high powered politicians, noone is going to back down and lose face

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

ROFLOL

ARRRRRRR, I BE Converted ARRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Zombrex

Well I am all on for the teaching of the connection between global warming and the steady decline of pirates ... but thats just common sense, and unlike ID is actually backed up by hard statistical evidence...

bonkey

psi wrote:

While I'm not defending the decision, I will say that one could argue that science changes the provisions of a definition regularly, without actually changing the definitions.

OK. I see the distinction you're making. Its important to remember though that science does this when it is provided with sufficient evidence both that the existing provisions/definition are/is incorrect, and that the new proposal is an improvement.

In effect, it follows the scientific method in order to make these changes.

The Kansas Board of Education, on the other hand, changed the definition (or provisions thereof) because, well, they disagreed with what the implications of that definition were. They most certainly did not employ any scientific methodology to reach their conclusions regarding the need for redefinition/reprovisioning.

The argument presented has generally been "but evolutionary theory has flaws". OK - they can show this side of things. No argument there - there are unresolved issues. However, the scientific conclusion would be to decide that evolutionary theory should have these flaws/failings/gaps pointed out. There is nothing rational or scientific (old or new definition/provisions) about concluding that because evolutionary theory still has these issues that this means some other concept is the valid, competing, scientific theory which should be taught.

Oh don't worry the 8 are apparently liberal democrats who openly oppose ID.

Yeah, after your comment I went and found some more info. Looks promising, I must say...especially considering that it was found that one of the outgoing 8 had once tried to get creationism on the school curriculum, and subsequently he received least votes. Sure - correlation and causation aren't the same thing (as I'm always quick to point out - but there would appear to be evidence suggesting correlation here.

Look, I'm not saying that any of this is good (I'm very opposed to ID being taught in US schools), however, I do think its being handled the wrong way by just about everyone.

I dunno. I guess it depends on what you see as the issue. Personally, my concern is the denigration of science. After that, I honestly couldn't care less. I don't mind if the US decides "this isn't science, but we'll allow it anyway", or if it decides to allow it in social studies, or somewhere else. My objection is to the ridiculous undermining of the basic concept of what science is because nothing good can come of it.

Right now, someone needs to look at what the students want and make a case for whats best for them.

What they want and whats best for them are two seperate subjective viewpoints, neither of which I believe have been neglected by either side. Both sides will insist they are looking out for what is best for the students, and will have no problem trotting out students (like they do scientists) to affirm their claims. No matter who comes out on top, they will claim its a popular victory and ultimately what is best for the students.

Me, I don't care about the students as much as I care about the subject. I'm looking out for what I see as being best for science, because that it what is under attack. It might be under attack for tangential reasons, but I'm personally only interested in the protection of science.

As I said earlier in this thread, the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Its the suggestion that such ideas are scientific that are anathema to me.

jc