The Mystery Thread

[Dan From Smithville]

If i argue Intelligent Design with you, do you really want to know how i feel doing it? It feels like arguing that a tree exists, or a car exists, or a human exists. It just feels weird arguing for it. Thats how convinced i am there is design and order everywhere.

The existence of a tree, a car or a human may be evidence that a designer exists. We do not know this. There is nothing connecting that existence to a designer except belief. Your conviction is based on belief. I cannot show you that it is wrong, but you cannot show me that it is right. All you can do is repeat the claim and then doubt all the evidence and logic that you are provided, and without critical review.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So to be clear, every nose, eye, ear, mouth, arm, and leg on earth are "designed" and the method you employed to reach that conclusion is "it's self-evident"?

Do I have that right?

With it being so self-evident, I wonder why there are all the questions that have lead to research and discovery. We must be missing something. I say we blame the Devil. He is the go to scapegoat for sin.

I can understand that a person can look at something as marvelous as an eye think that it is a miracle. But I am stumped that they cannot get passed their own incredulity and see more with those same eyes. They think they were designed, but don't bother to follow through and look with them.

 

[Jose Fly]

With it being so self-evident, I wonder why there are all the questions that have lead to research and discovery. We must be missing something. I say we blame the Devil. He is the go to scapegoat for sin.

I can understand that a person can look at something as marvelous as an eye think that it is a miracle. But I am stumped that they cannot get passed their own incredulity and see more with those same eyes. They think they were designed, but don't bother to follow through and look with them.

All very true and well put.

I also wonder....given how ID creationists insist that ID creationism is on par with evolutionary biology and given their "it's self-evident" way of supporting it, are they operating under the impression that evolutionary biology operates the same way? IOW, do ID creationists think evolutionary biology consists of scientists asserting "that evolved" and justifying it with nothing more than "it's self-evident"?

If so, I'd bet such folks have never read a published paper on evolutionary biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The nose, eyes, ears, mouth, arms, legs. Everyone has these in the same locations. That shows order and design. Its so powerful that its self evident.

What about a vestigial tail? What self-evident conclusions do you draw from those rare instances where a child is born with this remnant?

 

[Earthling]

First, who said anything about atheism?

Second, Hovind's state of ignorance regarding evolutionary biology stems from his own rhetoric on the subject, not from his denialism.

Here, you have the opportunity to go beyond baseless and bias and opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All very true and well put.

I also wonder....given how ID creationists insist that ID creationism is on par with evolutionary biology and given their "it's self-evident" way of supporting it, are they operating under the impression that evolutionary biology operates the same way? IOW, do ID creationists think evolutionary biology consists of scientists asserting "that evolved" and justifying it with nothing more than "it's self-evident"?

I think that you have identified an issue that is a keystone to the adversity of discussion. In my opinion, most creationists and ID creationists view science much as they view religion. They think that the claims of science are just opinion, equal to their own. Well, obviously not equal, but at least from the same basis. The operative notion I have experienced is that creationists of any sort are on the same playing field as someone educated, trained, or experienced in science and can make better conclusions of the evidence or, more often, have valid reasons to ignore the evidence completely. Implicit in this is a confused notion of equality that is part of both religion and US Constitutional doctrine. We may all have a right to an opinion, but all opinions are not the same nor are they all right. The confusion seems to be in having a right to an opinion and the quality of that opinion.

If so, I'd bet such folks have never read a published paper on evolutionary biology.

I agree with you. Not only technical literature, but more popular literature designed to express the ideas of science in a publicly digestible form. Some of them are very enthusiastic to point out that not only have they never read scientific works, but they get their science information from people they know to be liars, criminals and those they consider to be mentally ill.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here, you have the opportunity to go beyond baseless and bias and opinion.

So do you.

 

[Earthling]

So do you.

But that doesn't mean anything to you because under the guise of misinterpretation of what I said you dismiss me because I disagree with you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But that doesn't mean anything to you because under the guise of misinterpretation of what I said you dismiss me because I disagree with you.

I didn't misinterpret anything. You were very clear on what you said. That would be your miscommunication.

 

[Earthling]

I didn't misinterpret anything. You were very clear on what you said. That would be your miscommunication.

I know what I said. If I'm wrong you could always produce the post where I allegedly said otherwise.

 

[YmirGF]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

I'm more interested in why you would feel a need to ask such a monumentally stupid question. (You strike me as having a functioning intellect, hence my confusion.)

 

[Earthling]

I'm more interested in why you would feel a need to ask such a monumentally stupid question. (You strike me as having a functioning intellect, hence my confusion.)

I think the question was misunderstood. It was made with the assumption that everyone knows that I'm completely free to make a decision regardless. It was intended to establish whether rejecting one portion of science while accepting others, for example, as the atheists are wont to point out, using a personal computer, the Internet etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here, you have the opportunity to go beyond baseless and bias and opinion.

You mean Hovind's ridiculous rhetoric?

 

[YmirGF]

I think the question was misunderstood. It was made with the assumption that everyone knows that I'm completely free to make a decision regardless. It was intended to establish whether rejecting one portion of science while accepting others, for example, as the atheists are wont to point out, using a personal computer, the Internet etc.

Your explanation is not helping to erase my confusion. My own feeling on the matter though is that it is determined by how the individual determines authority figures in their particular experience and therefore may be open to change.

 

[Earthling]

You mean Hovind's ridiculous rhetoric?

And your own, I suppose. Saying to me that "The Bible is stupid and you're stupid for believing the Bible" (not that you did) means nothing to me.

Show me.

Saying Hovind is an ignorant turd means nothing to me. Nothing new, anyway. I'm interested in what he says. If he's wrong on evolution . . .

Show me.

 

[Earthling]

Your explanation is not helping to erase my confusion. My own feeling on the matter though is that it is determined by how the individual determines authority figures in their particular experience and therefore may be open to change.

Which brings us to my next installment of . . . THE MYSTERY THREAD!

Coming soon to a forum near you.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think that you have identified an issue that is a keystone to the adversity of discussion. In my opinion, most creationists and ID creationists view science much as they view religion. They think that the claims of science are just opinion, equal to their own. Well, obviously not equal, but at least from the same basis. The operative notion I have experienced is that creationists of any sort are on the same playing field as someone educated, trained, or experienced in science and can make better conclusions of the evidence or, more often, have valid reasons to ignore the evidence completely. Implicit in this is a confused notion of equality that is part of both religion and US Constitutional doctrine. We may all have a right to an opinion, but all opinions are not the same nor are they all right. The confusion seems to be in having a right to an opinion and the quality of that opinion.

Another factor IMO is how, in western society, science has usurped religion as the primary arbiter of reality. It wasn't that long ago that proclamations and such from religious leaders carried weight across society. Now, not so much. Today it's the finding of science that have currency, as evidenced by headlines and even advertising.

In that environment, creationists realize that merely appealing to scripture and religious authority to support their beliefs isn't very persuasive, so they try and sell their beliefs as being supported by science. Thus "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" were born.

I agree with you. Not only technical literature, but more popular literature designed to express the ideas of science in a publicly digestible form. Some of them are very enthusiastic to point out that not only have they never read scientific works, but they get their science information from people they know to be liars, criminals and those they consider to be mentally ill.

Well, you know the slippery slope.....understanding might lead to acceptance, which might lead to a crisis of faith. So it's far safer to nip that in the bud and remain ignorant.

 

[Jose Fly]

And your own, I suppose.

What specifically are you referring to?

Saying to me that "The Bible is stupid and you're stupid for believing the Bible" (not that you did) means nothing to me.

Show me.

I have no interest in anything like that.

Saying Hovind is an ignorant turd means nothing to me. Nothing new, anyway. I'm interested in what he says. If he's wrong on evolution . . .

Show me.

Sure. If you'd like, pick something from Hovind that you find compelling and we'll look into it.

 

[Earthling]

What specifically are you referring to?


I have no interest in anything like that.


Sure. If you'd like, pick something from Hovind that you find compelling and we'll look into it.

There should be something tonight in the thread Into The Zone in this forum.

 

[gnostic]

You, like every other atheist I have ever encountered, only say that because he disagrees with you. You will never admit that anyone knows evolution would reject it.

Dan is a Christian and a theist.

Being a theist and a Christian aren’t a job description, Earthling.

Anyone can become a scientist, regardless of a person’s religious and non-religious position.

The only differences between you and Dan From Smithville is that Dan understand science and don’t confuse religion with science.

What is really stupid is that you think ALL theists and ALL Christians must reject evolution and accept Intelligent Design...or else they are labelled as “atheists”.

But that’s just your biased opinion, not reality.

Do you want to know a simple fact, Earthling?

Charles Darwin from the time he could talk to the time of his voyage onboard of HMS Beagle (1831-1836) and to the time he published On Origin Of Species in 1859, he was very much a Christian.

He only became increasingly “agnostic” due to his association and his friendship to Thomas Henry Huxley, a biologist, who coined the word “agnosticism” in 1869.

Most of biologists who were contemporary in his time and who accepted Darwin’s new model, weren’t atheists, but actually Christians themselves.

The early adopters of evolution (before Darwin’s death) were more theists, some atheists and only a handful agnostics.

Even today in the US, biologists of Christian background still outnumbered biologists of atheistic background.

(Note that I am talking of actual numbers and not percentages, because percentage used in statistics can be deceiving. When using percentages in breakdown of specific groups (eg Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Muslims, JW, atheists, etc), between those who accept, those who reject or those that “I don’t know”, the percentages seemed higher or lower than the actual numbers in those individual groupings.)

Being a Christian and theist, don’t stop that person from understanding and accepting evolution as a fact.

Michael Behe from Discovery Institute, a biochemist, and author of Irreducible Complexity and Darwin’s Black Box, is a Catholic, and he accepted Intelligent Design, but a large number of Catholics who are biologists and biochemists actually accepted evolution and rejected ID. Far fewer Catholics who are professional scientists (not just in biology) are in the ID camp. The Catholic Behe, in the DI, is outnumbered by evangelist Protestants.

At the university (Lehigh University) where Behe worked as a professor, his entire biology department, while respecting Behe’s personal belief, they themselves unanimously rejected ID. Behe is alone in this with his ID and his Irreducible Complexity.

What I find absurd is that you lumping all who accept evolution being “atheists”. You are generalising and stereotyping evolution being synonymous with atheism.

Evolution have nothing to do with atheism, theism, agnosticism or other “-ism”.

Evolution is a field within biology branch, just as Newtonian physics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics are separate fields in the physics branch.

Dan doesn’t judge you for being a Christian, then you shouldn’t judge him for being a Christian. And you certainly cannot and shouldn’t accuse Dan of being “atheist”, when he clearly isn’t.