EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

It would be very different . . . it would remove the imprimatur of science from the "No God" position. Currently it is widely believed that science has shown there is no God (rightly or wrongly) . . .

REally? Widely? By whom? In any case, if so, it is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.

hence the push for rejection of science by the fundies even in the face of logic and evidence. This "deception by default" is unconscionable. Science should NEVER endorse ANYTHING without sufficient evidentiary validation. That is what the "No God" default does.

I think the causation went the other way round.

 

[MysticPhD]

REally? Widely? By whom? In any case, if so, it is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.

No argument . . . but it is the source of the current angst over evolution in the classroom. It is quite unnecessary except for the intransigence of religion AND science.

I think the causation went the other way round.

No argument . . . initially. But the tables have turned and it is now science that is overstepping the bounds of their data and authority to suggest that there is an extremely minute probability that there could be ANY God. There is absolutely NO scientific basis for that whatsoever.

 

[Luminous]

There would be far less controversy if what you allege about science were actually true. Unfortunately, the whole creation of "Nature" (as an alternative "god") to avoid all the religious crap is taking a position by default. That is simply not scientific and should not be tolerated. Science has no idea whatsoever what Nature truly is or why . . . any more than we ever knew about God. Every sentence that uses the words Nature or natural could be said with the same scientific precision using God or designed . . . without ANY change in validity.

exept that God is not know or understood, while nature is clearly observable.

 

[fantome profane]

Currently it is widely believed that science has shown there is no God (rightly or wrongly) . . . hence the push for rejection of science by the fundies even in the face of logic and evidence.

You may be right that this idea is widely held but I do not believe that it is the fault of science. It is the fundamentalists themselves who created several organizations and dedicated themselves fulltime to promoting this false idea.

No argument . . . but it is the source of the current angst over evolution in the classroom.

I can tell you that many members of this forum (many atheists in fact) have strongly and repeatedly made the point that science does not prove the non-existence of “God” and that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with “God”.

 

[MysticPhD]

exept that God is not know or understood, while nature is clearly observable.

Only certain attribute are not known or understood . . . "nature" is an artificial word designed to avoid the need to call it God (as it was for centuries before the schism caused by religious zealots.)

 

[MysticPhD]

You may be right that this idea is widely held but I do not believe that it is the fault of science. It is the fundamentalists themselves who created several organizations and dedicated themselves fulltime to promoting this false idea.

It is clearly a chicken/egg controversy today. They were trying to combat the deceptive default as scientific . . . the typical conclusion of barely educated kids in science classes. It is impossible to determine how much of the deception was unintentional versus promoted by the science teachers.

I can tell you that many members of this forum (many atheists in fact) have strongly and repeatedly made the point that science does not prove the non-existence of “God” and that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with “God”.

I believe you . . . and there is no reason for it to have ever become a problem. Unfortunately it has escalated and there is a decided movement by certain atheist scientists to take religion head on and assert the unjustified default as more scientifically valid than any other . . a-la-Dawkins, et al.

 

[Luminous]

Only certain attribute are not known or understood . . . "nature" is an artificial word designed to avoid the need to call it God (as it was for centuries before the schism caused by religious zealots.)

Are you saying that ur a pantheist? and that pantheism was widely believed in before the 'schism'? i dont understand wat u have writen. nature is the natural observable replicateable physical etc. God is a made up word for a monotheist god controller of phenomeno. nature is not controller of phenomeno, it is phenomeno. nature would thus be controled by a 'god' if it is controled at all.

 

[MysticPhD]

Are you saying that ur a pantheist? and that pantheism was widely believed in before the 'schism'? i dont understand wat u have writen. nature is the natural observable replicateable physical etc. God is a made up word for a monotheist god controller of phenomeno. nature is not controller of phenomeno, it is phenomeno. nature would thus be controled by a 'god' if it is controled at all.

Nature is the made up word to eliminate the earlier connection to God and the suppression of science by religious authority. Nature (God) is ALL THERE IS . . . the only difference is what attributes you believe it has. Science believes it is indifferent and purposeless. Theists believe it is designed and purposeful. Neither view can be established scientifically, period! The ONLY attributes ("laws" etc.) that are valid are the ones established by science. Everything else is opinion.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It is clearly a chicken/egg controversy today. They were trying to combat the deceptive default as scientific . . . the typical conclusion of barely educated kids in science classes. It is impossible to determine how much of the deception was unintentional versus promoted by the science teachers.

....versus promoted by the "church" as well as religious "scientists" (a.k.a. - wolf in sheep's clothing.)

I believe you . . . and there is no reason for it to have ever become a problem. Unfortunately it has escalated and there is a decided movement by certain atheist scientists to take religion head on and assert the unjustified default as more scientifically valid than any other . . a-la-Dawkins, et al.

Just as there is a very long-standing, and extremely powerful movement by many theists to take on science head on. Facts, scientists, and data be damned. ..... Literally. Most recently utilizing assertions by religious "scientists" that "intelligent design" stands the test of the scientific process, and thus should stand on equal ground with evolution as a theory. (Fair & Balanced don'cha know. )

.....
No argument . . . initially. But the tables have turned and it is now science that is overstepping the bounds of their data and authority to suggest that there is an extremely minute probability that there could be ANY God. .......

Science does not promote this idea. A tiny subset of fanatical atheists do. But I would not go so far as to even remotely suggest that "the tables have been turned". Religion, with all of its inherent flaws of dogma, is still overwhelmingly in control of the house, the room, the table, the deck of cards, and almost all of the players at the table too. :namaste

 

[MysticPhD]

....versus promoted by the "church" as well as religious "scientists" (a.k.a. - wolf in sheep's clothing.)

Unfortunately the insidious default of "No God" unless you prove it . . . is the true wolf pack in "neutral" clothing.

Just as there is a very long-standing, and extremely powerful movement by many theists to take on science head on. Facts, scientists, and data be damned. ..... Literally. Most recently utilizing assertions by religious "scientists" that "intelligent design" stands the test of the scientific process, and thus should stand on equal ground with evolution as a theory. (Fair & Balanced don'cha know. )

The Discovery Institute fraudulently sought to inject religious Creationism into curricula by misrepresenting the generic ID principle. ID ONLY objects to the usurpation of the default position by evolution theory. Instead of maintaining OPENLY that we "don't know" the source of the design or mutations . . . they mask their ignorance under artificial mathematical jargon . . . like randomness and probability as if that explained it scientifically. That is the real wolf in neutral sheep's clothing.

Science does not promote this idea. A tiny subset of fanatical atheists do. But I would not go so far as to even remotely suggest that "the tables have been turned". Religion, with all of its inherent flaws of dogma, is still overwhelmingly in control of the house, the room, the table, the deck of cards, and almost all of the players at the table too. :namaste

There shouldn't even be a conflict. The ignorant will remain ignorant as long as they see science as the enemy of God. If they saw science as the truly neutral arbiter . . . instead of the non-neutral one it deceptively proclaims as neutral . . . they could continue to remain ignorant without feeling any threat to their myths. The existence of God cannot be disproved nor proved. But science acts AS IF it has just about disproved God for all intents and purposes. THAT is unconscionable arrogance.

 

[logician]

" The existence of God cannot be disproved nor proved"

Many concepts of god can easily be disproven.

 

[MysticPhD]

" The existence of God cannot be disproved nor proved"

Many concepts of god can easily be disproven.

ONLY the specific claimed attributes . . . as long as we have no idea what "Nature" is or why . . . the generic concept cannot be.

 

[cottage]

ok then why aren't malaysans black? and why are the native australians black?

Actually, Aborigines aren't 'black', as with the inhabitants of central Africa, they are brown. They came originaly from Indonesia, bringing their DNA with them, of course.

"The Aborigines have the longest cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. The first humans travelled across the sea from Indonesia over a landbridge to Australia and Tasmania, about 70,000 years ago. The next immigration followed 20,000 years later. The members of this group which had spread over the western part of Australia are the Aborigines' ancestors. The whole continent was colonised within a few thousand years. When the Europeans came to Australia in the 18th century, they found about 750,000 "primitive" natives, as they called them, who seemed to live there as in the Stone Age."

 

[Autodidact]

Nature is the made up word to eliminate the earlier connection to God and the suppression of science by religious authority. Nature (God) is ALL THERE IS . . . the only difference is what attributes you believe it has. Science believes it is indifferent and purposeless. Theists believe it is designed and purposeful. Neither view can be established scientifically, period! The ONLY attributes ("laws" etc.) that are valid are the ones established by science. Everything else is opinion.

Unless you employ Occam's Razor.

 

[fantome profane]

The Discovery Institute fraudulently sought to inject religious Creationism into curricula by misrepresenting the generic ID principle. ID ONLY objects to the usurpation of the default position by evolution theory. Instead of maintaining OPENLY that we "don't know" the source of the design or mutations .

The other problem is when I.D. masquerades as a new scientific idea, that it is an alternative explanation. I completely agree with you that science cannot and must not make a statement concerning the existence of “God”. But this is not the argument that I hear from I.D. proponents like Behe or Dembski. Their thesis seems to be that an intelligent willed entity can be deduced from scientific principles. And they are quite wrong. They are just as wrong as Dawkins is when he argues that the non-existence of “God” can be deduced from science. The main difference is that although Dawkins is wrong on this point, the theory of evolution is still a valid scientific concept well supported by the evidence. Behe and Dembski are wrong and Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific concept and has absolutely no evidence to support it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'm sorry MysticPhD, but I'm going to have to break down your paragraph/sentence structure, as I am not sure where you stand, or exactly what it is you are proposing. :sorry1:

Unfortunately the insidious default of "No God" unless you prove it . . . is the true wolf pack in "neutral" clothing.

Again, the table is clearly set and controlled by those with the default of "Yes God". Consider:
-- Total human population ~ 7 Billion
-- Human population that believes VEHEMENENTLY in a magical, unprovable, all-knowing being as creator and ruler of the universe ~ 6.5 Billion
-- Human population that is undecided as to God's existence ~ 0.4 billion
-- Population that strongly believes that there is "No God" ~ 0.1 Billion

.....give or take.........

? So where again is the pack?

The Discovery Institute fraudulently sought to inject religious Creationism into curricula by misrepresenting the generic ID principle. ID ONLY objects to the usurpation of the default position by evolution theory. Instead of maintaining OPENLY that we "don't know" the source of the design or mutations . . . they mask their ignorance under artificial mathematical jargon . . . like randomness and probability as if that explained it scientifically.

Ah.... I think I see the error that you are proposing, and as considered by many theists/creationists/etc....
Here is the original ID theory. ---> http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
Fleshed out a little more simply at this main site ---> Intelligent Design Network :: Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science

You, they, and many an other theist are forgetting The Scientific Process. :yes: and the reason that Evolution is still discussed as "a theory".
Science is always open to new information. It is the quintessential core value of all science. The theory of evolution is taught, since it is the one and only theory that holds up against many thousands and thousands of experiments. Never ONCE failing. If it did fail, EVEN ONCE, then the theory would be torn down and reconstructed around the facts. That is the scientific process, as all elementary and junior high students are taught (whether they grasp it, or have it reinforced by their parents is a different matter).
- Hypothesize ---> Test/experiment ---> re-evaluate and modify hypothesis to fit the facts.
However; the ID objectives (linked above) clearly states....(with more flowery words)....."Gee....evolution is fine and all. But since we cannot reasonably test events that occurred billions of years ago; including the 'moment of creation/big bang' then we must accept that the theory of evolution ain't so hot, since we cannot test/experiment on its hypothesis. Oh well. I guess that means that any old crackpot hypothesis is of equal value to the theory of evolution, since NONE OF THEM can be reasonably tested.....EVER." La Dee Da!
"Oh look! We have a theory! Some all knowing, all seeing force created everything! Now it up to everyone else to prove us wrong." "WHEEEeeeee!"

Of course MysticPhD.....at this point the Spaghetti Monster believers have equal footing to promote their own theories in our schools utilizing the ID system of (il)logic.

There shouldn't even be a conflict. The ignorant will remain ignorant as long as they see science as the enemy of God.

I agree.

If they saw science as the truly neutral arbiter . . . instead of the non-neutral one it deceptively proclaims as neutral . .

:sarcastic Uhhh...OK, you lost me there.
Science IS neutral.

..... The existence of God cannot be disproved nor proved.

Again, I agree.

But science acts AS IF it has just about disproved God for all intents and purposes. THAT is unconscionable arrogance.

Here I vehemenently disagree with you. In the history of humanity, science awoke a few centuries back. It is just now just starting to introduce itself and its logical proofs to a mass of humanity that has (for hundreds of generations) believed whole-heartedly in magic, to a degree that many are willing to kill and die for it. Thus the young entity of science is NOT getting a warm welcome to the table. :fight:
It is the old beliefs in magic that, without any proof, insist that they are correct, simply because they have been around for a much longer period of time. THAT is the unconscionable arrogance. THAT is the wolfpack.

 

[MysticPhD]

Unless you employ Occam's Razor.

Friar William of Ockham's razor is NOT a scientific principle and it is not always the best answer . . . just the preferred BS to fraudulently establish "No God" as the scientific default.

 

[MysticPhD]

The other problem is when I.D. masquerades as a new scientific idea, that it is an alternative explanation. I completely agree with you that science cannot and must not make a statement concerning the existence of “God”. But this is not the argument that I hear from I.D. proponents like Behe or Dembski. Their thesis seems to be that an intelligent willed entity can be deduced from scientific principles. And they are quite wrong. They are just as wrong as Dawkins is when he argues that the non-existence of “God” can be deduced from science. The main difference is that although Dawkins is wrong on this point, the theory of evolution is still a valid scientific concept well supported by the evidence. Behe and Dembski are wrong and Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific concept and has absolutely no evidence to support it.

I don't disagree . . . but the generic ID ONLY regards the existence of design and purpose . . . in contrast to the indifference and purposelessness of science's preferred default.

 

[MysticPhD]

I'm sorry MysticPhD, but I'm going to have to break down your paragraph/sentence structure, as I am not sure where you stand, or exactly what it is you are proposing. :sorry1:

No problem, I appreciate your interest.

Again, the table is clearly set and controlled by those with the default of "Yes God". Consider:
-- Total human population ~ 7 Billion
-- Human population that believes VEHEMENENTLY in a magical, unprovable, all-knowing being as creator and ruler of the universe ~ 6.5 Billion
-- Human population that is undecided as to God's existence ~ 0.4 billion
-- Population that strongly believes that there is "No God" ~ 0.1 Billion

.....give or take.........

? So where again is the pack?

Among the scientific intellectual elite . . . as always. The masses will always circle the lowest common denominator in intellectual understanding. But if the scientific elite are so deranged by their animosity toward the fundamentalist idiocracy that they paint all theism with the same brush . . . there will be no advancement beyond the lowest common denominator . . . only rejection of science.

Ah.... I think I see the error that you are proposing, and as considered by many theists/creationists/etc....
Here is the original ID theory. ---> http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
Fleshed out a little more simply at this main site ---> Intelligent Design Network :: Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science

You, they, and many an other theist are forgetting The Scientific Process. :yes: and the reason that Evolution is still discussed as "a theory".
Science is always open to new information. It is the quintessential core value of all science. The theory of evolution is taught, since it is the one and only theory that holds up against many thousands and thousands of experiments. Never ONCE failing. If it did fail, EVEN ONCE, then the theory would be torn down and reconstructed around the facts. That is the scientific process, as all elementary and junior high students are taught (whether they grasp it, or have it reinforced by their parents is a different matter).
- Hypothesize ---> Test/experiment ---> re-evaluate and modify hypothesis to fit the facts.
However; the ID objectives (linked above) clearly states....(with more flowery words)....."Gee....evolution is fine and all. But since we cannot reasonably test events that occurred billions of years ago; including the 'moment of creation/big bang' then we must accept that the theory of evolution ain't so hot, since we cannot test/experiment on its hypothesis. Oh well. I guess that means that any old crackpot hypothesis is of equal value to the theory of evolution, since NONE OF THEM can be reasonably tested.....EVER." La Dee Da!
"Oh look! We have a theory! Some all knowing, all seeing force created everything! Now it up to everyone else to prove us wrong." "WHEEEeeeee!"

Of course MysticPhD.....at this point the Spaghetti Monster believers have equal footing to promote their own theories in our schools utilizing the ID system of (il)logic.

I agree that the notion of ID has been hijacked for ulterior purposes but I would restore it to its original purpose . . . opposing the randomness and purposelessness that is assumed. The assumption stamps the concept with the imprimatur of science just because our artificial mathematics can produce pseudo predictions deceitfully mimicking understanding. Randomness and probability MEANS we don't have any idea how, when or why mutations occur . . . but "hey look we can use our math to predict their frequency."

I agree.
:sarcastic Uhhh...OK, you lost me there.
Science IS neutral.

"No God" . . . is NOT the neutral position . . . "we don't know" is. Assuming no purpose, no design, because in our ignorance we can't figure out what it might be is NOT a scientifically neutral position.

Here I vehemenently disagree with you. In the history of humanity, science awoke a few centuries back. It is just now just starting to introduce itself and its logical proofs to a mass of humanity that has (for hundreds of generations) believed whole-heartedly in magic, to a degree that many are willing to kill and die for it. Thus the young entity of science is NOT getting a warm welcome to the table. :fight:
It is the old beliefs in magic that, without any proof, insist that they are correct, simply because they have been around for a much longer period of time. THAT is the unconscionable arrogance. THAT is the wolfpack.

Being outnumbered has never been a justification for arrogance and religion has never pretended to be neutral . . . as science does. Let's agree that BOTH sides that take a position are arrogant and unjustified, period.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't disagree . . . but the generic ID ONLY regards the existence of design and purpose . . . in contrast to the indifference and purposelessness of science's preferred default.

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure it is a good idea to adopt the “I.D.” label for this idea. Usually when I encounter people promoting I.D. what they are actually promoting is either re-branded creationism or pseudo-science. As to the religious, philosophical or metaphysical assumption of purpose I have no strong objections. I don’t agree, it is not how I see things, but I can understand and respect that viewpoint. I just think you ought to distance yourself from this terminology that has been so strongly associated with what I think is a very dishonest and unethical movement. I think that many people who believe in this metaphysical idea get unfairly tarred with the creationism/pseudo-science brush, and I also think that many of these people inadvertently lend their support to the kind of anti-science propaganda that the I.D. movement promotes.