Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
scientific proof of god
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
"My God, it's full of stars!"
Count all the stars and you will know the secrets of the black rectangle.0 -
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.0 -
bus77 wrote:"My God, it's full of stars!"
Count all the stars and you will know the secrets of the black rectangle.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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
jc0 -
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 room0 -
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.0 -
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 way0 -
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..0 -
Advertisement
-
-
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!)0
-
Vangelis wrote:And what makes Hubble's method for this credible? Because it suits the BB-theory?
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.0 -
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?
jc0 -
Vangelis wrote:How do you calculate the observable Universe to be 13 billion years old?Vangelis wrote:As for the unobservable, do you mean dark matter?Vangelis wrote:By the way, there is greater disagreement about the Big Bang's credibility these days. If I only knew more about that..0
-
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't0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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
jc0 -
-
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.
jc0 -
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-science0 -
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.0 -
psi wrote: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.
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.
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.But to my mind, the whole ID thing has gone political now and common sense no longer applies.
jc0 -
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.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.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.
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?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 face0 -
-
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...0
-
Advertisement
-
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.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.
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.
jc0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement