|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 5, 2008 14:26:44 GMT -5
I a film on this today that did a comparison with the slant more toward evolution.
It's curious that both sides are, in fact, belief systems. There is no evidence that man evolved from the ape and the 100+ year search for the missing link has never been found. (nor will it ever be).
Intelligent Design is viewed as a revamped rendition of Creationsim (ie religion). This also is a belief system that has (as yet) to produce objective evidence to the existence of Father.
At least given the common limitations present in the genus.
Both sides never consider the logical possibility that evolution and intelligent design are two sides of the same coin and that both can simulatenously be true.
The greatest hypocrisy in the argument is on the side of the evolutionists who claim 'science' to be the arbiter - yet science has no proof to support their contention and they aren't willing to admit the belief system status of their 'religion'. Again, not willing to give admittance that science is just another side of a greater coin.
So essentially we have 2 sides arguing that their faith is better than the other one.
Ironically, given my methodologies, the existence of Father 'can' be proven even though the evidence is subjective it can be brought to the level of objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 5, 2008 17:11:22 GMT -5
The evolutionists fail to answer one very basic and essential question upon which their entire premise rests: How can "something" come from "nothing"? Restated...How can creation come into being of "its" own accord when there was no "it" in existence to have an accord?
Creationists do not address this issue because facts, logic and reason are not required for belief. The belief stands upon the first verse of Genesis which does not exactly give very much in the way of scientific details but simply states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 5, 2008 21:44:14 GMT -5
Genesis also as another problem - where did Able's wife come?
|
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 6, 2008 13:58:56 GMT -5
Cal: your statement about missing links seems to ignore the evidence in other species lending itself to evolution. I'll certainly accept that evolution may not apply to human beings and their connections to chimpanzees.
In my opinion, intelligent design has one lethal flaw: it is not science. It makes no effort to prove itself wrong using the scientific method. In fact, it cloaks itself in scientific terms but cherry-picks those bits of evidence in favor of the theory. Science seeks to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it. Good science accepts when it is wrong and seeks out being wrong.
I've always fallen in line with the Catholic Church's take and Pope John Paul II's assessment: evolution is fundamentally congruent with Church teaching provided that God started the process. I accept that because I am not a biblical literalist and neither is the Catholic Church, and because the science just isn't there to back up anything that an intelligent designer has to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 6, 2008 14:21:45 GMT -5
>>In my opinion, intelligent design has one lethal flaw: it is not science. It makes no effort to prove itself wrong using the scientific method.
I'm smiling here. Given the complexity of creation, 'if' there is an intelligent designer, don't you think he's have a knowledge of 'science'. It strikes me that creation is (itself) the proving for such knowledge. And what makes you think that Father feels the need to prove Himself according to the limitations of current scientific knowledge (ie scientific method).
>>In fact, it cloaks itself in scientific terms but cherry-picks those bits of evidence in favor of the theory. Science seeks to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it. Good science accepts when it is wrong and seeks out being wrong.
You can't prove a negative. The point is to prove the hypothesis - not to disprove. Point in fact, neither side has sufficient objective proof to establish their provings.
>>I've always fallen in line with the Catholic Church's take and Pope John Paul II's assessment: evolution is fundamentally congruent with Church teaching provided that God started the process. I accept that because I am not a biblical literalist and neither is the Catholic Church, and because the science just isn't there to back up anything that an intelligent designer has to say.
Essentially, we're both saying that intelligent design and evolution could both be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 6, 2008 14:32:34 GMT -5
I do not deny that God would have a knowledge of science. Intelligent Design, as put forth by its supporters, is not based in the scientific method, therefore I do not believe that it merits the same "scientific" footing that evolution has because it has not gone through the same scrutiny.
You're right, you cannot prove a negative. But you can attempt to disprove a positive. The point IS to disprove the hypothesis. That is what the scientific method is at its core: pure skepticism. Scientific methodology is about having a "humble" opinion of your idea; so humble in fact that you seek to disprove your idea. If it stands up to your attempts at disproving it through other explanations, and then stands up to the attempts of other scientists replicating and deconstructing your theory, then and only then is it considered good science (which can still, in the end, be overturned). Neither side has sufficient evidence, and never will, but the side that I think is closer is the evolutionist side.
And essentially, we are both saying that intelligent design and evolution could both be true. It just matters when you think the intelligent design started. I think it started about 14 billion years ago when the universe was created, but most folks who espouse the belief in ID think it started about 7,000 years ago with the book of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 6, 2008 14:55:04 GMT -5
And again - both sides can be wrong as there isn't sufficient evidence to establish either point.
Anything that is true can be proven via logic, reason or fact. This has a basis in the scientific method. It is also at its core the nature of truth. I'd agree with one criticism that Intelligent Design is a revamp of Creationism and is an attempt to cloak the religious belief in science.
Point in fact, both are belief systems and it is an argument between two religions - mine is better than yours - and neither can make their case.
Science has, for example, established via fossel discoveries that man has been on the planet 1 million years. Additionally, the dinos establish generalized life at 60 million years. These 'facts' do not sync up with the creationist time line that assumes the Bible is an accurate measure of time. To follow this assumption you have to IGNORE the problem of Able's wife. The obvious conclusion is that the Bible is the history of the Jews - not of mankind.
To accept creationist theory requires not accepting facts from the same Biblical source they claim as their validation. Intelligent design is flawed in this regard. However, Intelligent Design does have support outside of the Bible based upon facts and science and it always comes down to which came first, the chicken or the egg.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 6, 2008 17:09:47 GMT -5
Logic, reason, and fact are the basis of the scientific method, but not the end of it. I would put forward that what is reasonable is not always correct, and vice versa. In my mind, intelligent design's ignorance of true scientific methodology makes it "reasonable" to the point that it is satisfactory for many religious people. However, it is not "scientific" enough for the satisfaction of nay-sayers (me included). Making something "reasonable" is the first hurdle, making it "logical" is the second hurdle, and making it "factual" is the last hurdle towards something being scientific (although the scientific method itself states that it cannot prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt). Another trouble my wife pointed out is that if ID were to stand up to the scientific method, its proponents would have to accept that the existence of God could be disproven, which it cannot.
Now: which DID come first? the chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 6, 2008 18:55:23 GMT -5
I said 'reason', not reasonable. Reasonable varies from person to person. I'd argue that one doesn't make reality factual. This would stand on its own merit. It is via the examination of facts that the rest follows.
Father came first
|
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 7, 2008 14:39:18 GMT -5
I stand corrected on the wording you used. And I believe in the end, we are pretty much in agreement.
So if Father came first: then which did he make? The chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Oct 7, 2008 15:07:51 GMT -5
Hi,
I will take a wild guess and speculate that the answer is neither the chicken egg nor the chicken bird came first. Perhaps long ago simple cell dividing organisms started producing something egg like. Egg laying sea creatures may have slowly turned into egg laying chickens.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 7, 2008 15:12:35 GMT -5
Hi, I will take a wild guess and speculate that the answer is neither the chicken egg nor the chicken bird came first. Perhaps long ago simple cell dividing organisms started producing something egg like. Egg laying sea creatures may have slowly turned into egg laying chickens. David David, Which came first...the amoeba or the amoeba?  Stephen |
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 7, 2008 20:56:52 GMT -5
Hollis >>So if Father came first: then which did he make? The chicken or the egg? You'd have to ask Him - He hadn't made us yet  |
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 8, 2008 0:54:19 GMT -5
Well then, i will get "in the spirit" immediately and resolve this puzzle that currently perplexes us.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollis on Oct 8, 2008 22:05:06 GMT -5
You're right, Dinah, if you aren't educated in scientific methodology and aren't discerning enough, you would be led to believe that there were "truths." The closest science has ever come to an unassailable "truth" is gravitation, and no physicist will be arrogant enough to tell you how it works, just that it does. At least, so far.
|
|
