Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[Quiddity]

It is a bit sad, but probably inevetable, that these discussions always seem to devolve into 2 camps, one of which brings forth evidence which is falsifiable, or proven as much as possible by the scientific method, and another camp who generally wants to say "yeah, but I want to ignore all that and go with this fantastical story I heard on Sunday".

And before the theists jump down my throat, you have no idea how badly I want for there to be a God in the model of the New Testament God of Love mold. It is because I was not satisfied with what I was taught in church as a child and my observations of the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty around me that I began my search into history and theology, logic and reason.

I began this search in the fervent hope that I would find the missing peices of the puzzle that would make all this stuff "click" for me, and allow me to come to know God. Sadly for me, the more I learned the farther I got away from the goal I was attempting to acheive. So far away, that I am now at the poin where I am baffled how anyone who has done any level of study into these subjects can say with any level of intellectual honesty that they are sure that there is an Abrahamic God and that He is a good or benevolent diety.

As long as your looking and seeking understanding. In searches, misconceptions arise.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Well Victor, the search continues. Tho I will keep up the search, I find myself with little hope that I will reach my original goal. Tho it has led me to meet many interesting people and have fascinating discussions, present company definately included.

B.

 

[greatcalgarian]

It is a bit sad, but probably inevetable, that these discussions always seem to devolve into 2 camps, one of which brings forth evidence which is falsifiable, or proven as much as possible by the scientific method, and another camp who generally wants to say "yeah, but I want to ignore all that and go with this fantastical story I heard on Sunday".

And before the theists jump down my throat, you have no idea how badly I want for there to be a God in the model of the New Testament God of Love mold. It is because I was not satisfied with what I was taught in church as a child and my observations of the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty around me that I began my search into history and theology, logic and reason.

I began this search in the fervent hope that I would find the missing peices of the puzzle that would make all this stuff "click" for me, and allow me to come to know God. Sadly for me, the more I learned the farther I got away from the goal I was attempting to acheive. So far away, that I am now at the poin where I am baffled how anyone who has done any level of study into these subjects can say with any level of intellectual honesty that they are sure that there is an Abrahamic God and that He is a good or benevolent diety.

Back to the discussion at hand. Can anyone, anywhere prove to us that ID fits into the definition of a scientific theory? I think not. Haven't seen it here, haven't read about it anywhere else, but there are a ton of people out there who have been forced by science to admit that we don't have a young earth, who are still clinging to this ID stuff. How can clinging to a lie ever be a good thing? Positing that ID is science when it very clearly is not, is a lie. How can you, in good conscience, and with any degree of intellectual honesty say that ID needs to be in science class?

B.

It all boils down to one word "faith". If you can find a scientific way of defining and verifying and studying faith, then perhaps you may be able to find a way back to your early childhood education of a Christian God.
All my Christian friends and relatives have been advising me (they have been praying very hard for me, I think), let yourself go, trust in Him, have faith, and just believe, and everything will work out fine. Have you tried that? It did not work and is still not working for me unfortunately.:biglaugh:

 

[Quiddity]

It all boils down to one word "faith". If you can find a scientific way of defining and verifying and studying faith, then perhaps you may be able to find a way back to your early childhood education of a Christian God.
All my Christian friends and relatives have been advising me (they have been praying very hard for me, I think), let yourself go, trust in Him, have faith, and just believe, and everything will work out fine. Have you tried that? It did not work and is still not working for me unfortunately.:biglaugh:

Perhaps it's this "it's all going to be alright" attitude that is expected that drives the fuzzy feeders away. I wouldn't personally say that to you.

 

[Abram]

It is a bit sad, but probably inevetable, that these discussions always seem to devolve into 2 camps, one of which brings forth evidence which is falsifiable, or proven as much as possible by the scientific method, and another camp who generally wants to say "yeah, but I want to ignore all that and go with this fantastical story I heard on Sunday".

Back to the discussion at hand. Can anyone, anywhere prove to us that ID fits into the definition of a scientific theory? I think not. Haven't seen it here, haven't read about it anywhere else, but there are a ton of people out there who have been forced by science to admit that we don't have a young earth, who are still clinging to this ID stuff. How can clinging to a lie ever be a good thing? Positing that ID is science when it very clearly is not, is a lie. How can you, in good conscience, and with any degree of intellectual honesty say that ID needs to be in science class?

I sadly started this debate on a foolish statement made with no intent on saying ID is a theory. It was said that evolution is a fact, I said no because it is still a theory. But I didn't want to push ID as a fact and preach. So I was beat up on by one those really smart stupid guys. So yes I was wrong...

ID is not a theory...
"That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism"

And before the theists jump down my throat, you have no idea how badly I want for there to be a God in the model of the New Testament God of Love mold. It is because I was not satisfied with what I was taught in church as a child and my observations of the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty around me that I began my search into history and theology, logic and reason

I began this search in the fervent hope that I would find the missing peices of the puzzle that would make all this stuff "click" for me, and allow me to come to know God. Sadly for me, the more I learned the farther I got away from the goal I was attempting to acheive. So far away, that I am now at the poin where I am baffled how anyone who has done any level of study into these subjects can say with any level of intellectual honesty that they are sure that there is an Abrahamic God and that He is a good or benevolent diety.

I did the same as you here in a quest to prove God wrong and not real. With so much proof pointing to science and away from God. Well I found out you can find evidence to prove anything right or wrong. Science can not prove the Bible wrong nor right. You can believe in God and science at the same time. The world has pinned them against each other.
Could have God used evolution to create the world? We don't know, but I can tell you there is supernatural power and a Holy Spirt. (sorry there is so science project to prove it) It has moved in my life and many others in a way that can't be described. You can't see air but you know it's there. I'm not trying to talk anyone from their beliefs or into mine. But why would you try to talk anyone out of their faith if it makes them happy, comforts them, gives them a path to live by and in turn makes there life feel more complete. You don't lay up at night worrying about stuff I can't change.

I'm so sorry you couldn't find the proof you need to believe. As you said you wanted to believe in him so badly. Just keep looking with that goal in your heart, and I promise you, he'll show you himself. It will be the most amazing moment in your life...

Sorry for preaching Not all Christians are Bible pushing, judgmental, hypocritical people. Only the ones on TV.:biglaugh:
But look around this forum, you'll find intelligent believers.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

It all boils down to one word "faith". If you can find a scientific way of defining and verifying and studying faith, then perhaps you may be able to find a way back to your early childhood education of a Christian God.
All my Christian friends and relatives have been advising me (they have been praying very hard for me, I think), let yourself go, trust in Him, have faith, and just believe, and everything will work out fine. Have you tried that? It did not work and is still not working for me unfortunately.:biglaugh:

I am right there with you. I did this, as much as I possibly could. It just ain't there for me.

B.

 

[painted wolf]

ID is not a theory...

and thus it has no place in Science class... keep it in the church where it belongs.

wa:do

 

[Abram]

and thus it has no place in Science class... keep it in the church where it belongs.

wa:do

You must remember that there is as much strong evidence for a young earth as a old one, science evidence. Now with that being said, why push only one view to childeren. If the earth is young then it could show that it was created by design. We can tell them aliens created so we skip the whole religion thing. Besides, some science believes in aliens, so it must be true.

I think over the next 10 years ID will make it's way in...

 

[JerryL]

You must remember that there is as much strong evidence for a young earth as a old one, science evidence.

No, there really isn't. There's no evidence at all that would establish an Earth under several billion years old.

Now with that being said, why push only one view to childeren.

Because only one view is scientific. The other is theological.

 

[Sunstone]

I think over the next 10 years ID will make it's way in...

IF ID could stand on its own feet, as science, then I would have no problem with it making its way into the science classroom. But the fact is that it cannot stand on its own feet as science. The proponents of ID know this which is why they have a political strategy for getting ID into the classroom. That is, they want to carry a notion that cannot stand on its own into the classroom via politics, rather than via science. That is both underhanded and dangerous.

 

[Abram]

IF ID could stand on its own feet, as science, then I would have no problem with it making its way into the science classroom. But the fact is that it cannot stand on its own feet as science. The proponents of ID know this which is why they have a political strategy for getting ID into the classroom. That is, they want to carry a notion that cannot stand on its own into the classroom via politics, rather than via science. That is both underhanded and dangerous.

Not yet, i'm just saynig that if we could show that the earth is only 5000 years old, then what do we teach our kids. There is a huge movment in the science world torward this view. The ID thing is still a new term, it will be able to stand on it own feet, as science in due time. Remember that ID created science, not the other way around...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not yet, i'm just saynig that if we could show that the earth is only 5000 years old, then what do we teach our kids. There is a huge movment in the science world torward this view. The ID thing is still a new term, it will be able to stand on it own feet, as science in due time. Remember that ID created science, not the other way around...

Where is this huge movement? In the fundamentalist churches in Kansas?

 

[Abram]

No, there really isn't. There's no evidence at all that would establish an Earth under several billion years old.

There is lots of evidence for a young earth and I'm going to start a new thread on this to help educate.

The most effective way that science has for guessing age is carbon dating. Go have them carbon date a live snail. It may suprise you to find out that it's 10 millions years old?

 

[Abram]

Where is this huge movement? In the fundamentalist churches in Kansas?

see new thread a young earth

 

[painted wolf]

actually if ID had been able to stand up as science it wouldn't have gone away to begin with. ID was around long before Darwin. Its been trying to stage a comeback for more than 200 years.

ID has had 200 years to gather evidence and has yet to produce anything worthy of entering the relm of mainstream science... or science education.

wa:do

 

[Fade]

There is lots of evidence for a young earth and I'm going to start a new thread on this to help educate.

The most effective way that science has for guessing age is carbon dating. Go have them carbon date a live snail. It may suprise you to find out that it's 10 millions years old?

So where is this new thread then?

Can you support your claim that a live snail carbon dates to 10 million years old? References please.
This link presents a counter argument to your statement, note that the margin for error in dating the mollusc was 3000 years, not a million as you suggest. In any case, carbon dating is only accurate up to around 50,000 years so your source patently doesn't understand the application of carbon dating.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2-1.html

At any rate, if you haven't started a new thread I would suggest a read of this website as I'm pretty sure that every argument you present in favour of a young earth will have been refuted by the author.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

Be honest with yourself and read all of it.

There is zero evidence for a young earth.

 

[YmirGF]

That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Your right... So if it's not a theory then it must be fact.

You might also want to look up "logic".

I find your statement

Your right... So if it's not a theory then it must be fact.

to be breathtaking. Strangely, I was unaware that if something is not a theory, then it is a fact. Logic would seem to indicate that it could also be a simple lie. Failure to appreciate this teensy reality is to walk the gangplank of reason.
I would love to see just how far Science would get, thinking that way.

IF ID could stand on its own feet, as science, then I would have no problem with it making its way into the science classroom. But the fact is that it cannot stand on its own feet as science. The proponents of ID know this which is why they have a political strategy for getting ID into the classroom. That is, they want to carry a notion that cannot stand on its own into the classroom via politics, rather than via science. That is both underhanded and dangerous.

Bravo Sunstone. I feel exactly the same way. What gets under my nerves about this debate is that introduction of ID as a valid theory will only erode logical thinking. To give ID any hint of support, undermines critical thinking and will open the proverbial "Pandora's Box". After ID is introduced, there would be no reason whatsover for NOT bringing in every other crackpot so-called "theory".

Just because I firmly believe that my ashtray is God, does not make my ashtray God, no matter how much I want to believe it is true.