[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

ID attempts to explain how a higher power and ideas like evolution could both work as mechanisms for the design of our species as it is today. The false assumption that either of the theories you mentioned are designed specifically to discredit unproven scientific theories is simply off-base.

As said so many times, there is no such thing as a proven theory, just theories that can explain and predict outcomes of experiments. A scientific theory is falsifiable whereas ID and Creationism aren't (since you can neither prove the existence or non-existence of God).

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Creationism was around well before scientists theorized that the origin of the species may have been caused by evolution.

True, and like the theory of epicycles to predict the movement of the other planets of the solar system which supposedly revolved around the earth were eventually replaced by a heliocentric model, creationism was replaced by a scientific theory on the origin of the species.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The funny thing is, the opposite is quite possibly true (at least as espoused by some) and these "scientific" ideas are attempts to discredit religious views by people who have personal religious bias.

Nonsense. First of all, you should omit those superfluous quotation marks since the ideas really are scientific. Then it seems strange to me that you honestly believe some scientists are motivated to create theories which discredit religion. Religious institutions shouldn't meddle with science, but I haven't met one scientist who wanted to discredit faith by scientific theory (which you can't do anyway). Scientists are well aware of the limits of scientific theories whereas the same cannot be said for some religious figures.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Somebody's done their research!

I think it would follow that a purely materialistic world view is one devoid of purpose. I've heard some say that an Atheist's biggest question should be whether or not to kill him/herself, (this was not said to be rude, demeaning, or for shock value, but an honest conclusion from a lack of purpose in life.)

I think both extremes are devoid of meaning. A purely spiritual point of view is as meaningless as a purely logical one. In the former you cannot seek for reason, cause and effect, the latter doesn't touch the question of purpose. So in this sense, they complement each other very nicely. I also don't think it's an Atheist's question, but rather a question everybody asks himself, regardless whether you believe in God or another kind of faith or nothing at all.

However, since this distinction is also based on logic, scientists are usually aware of their boundaries, some people with strong religious conviction are usually not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Evolution is a proven theory, not an untested hypothesis.

Reading comprehension problems?

Evolution as the means for the origin of the species would be a hypothesis. It has not been "proven". Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Wrong. See the part where you said there was an "unexplained" energy? The origin of species is explained. Before Darwin, it wasn't explained, and at that time your comparison would have been perfectly valid.

Yes, there have been many explanations made for the origin of the species, just as I'm sure there were numerous ideas about the nature of the energy that ended being known as radiation. You're trying to turn this into a semantical argument.

Wrong. Hypothesizing such would be appropriate, but theorizing requires empirical evidence, and there is none for intelligent designers (yet?).

You're going to have to get your definitions straight. According to your post, not only does there have to be evidence, but enough to definitively prove something. While there is evidence (though possibly circumstantial) for the idea that the origin of the species came about via evolution, there it is certainly not sufficient enough to "prove" it.

No one is censoring those who would like to research those possibilities. If you want to gather evidence for them, I fully support you. The only people who are being censored are those that try to claim that those possibilities are already scientific theories, supported by evidence (which is what scientific theories are). In other words, liars.]/quote]

Your opinion is noted.


Wrong. In fact those assumptions are proven and documented in the Wedge Stragety.

Again..your opinion is noted.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

There's no "strawman" here. Stupendousman is a coward. He claims someone has definitively "refuted" the theory of evolution, but won't say who.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that YOUR tactics are not "deceitful", but possibly just are caused by your lack of reading comprehension. No need to resort to insults about one's honesty when it's quite possible just their lack of intellect.

I'm not about to argue a point that I know of someone who has "definitively 'refuted' the theory of evolution" or "disproven" it since I never made EITHER claim. Trying to get me to answer charges I never made is by defintion a "strawman".

That's twice you've falsely claimed that ID is being "censored." No one is censoring the IDiots. They are free to publish anything they want. What they are not free to do is bypass the scientific process in order to stuff their ideas into schools.

..and as I stated, the "scientific" process apparently means censoring out possibilities that can not yet be proven....as long as they aren't evolution as the means for the origin of the species.

ps. I'm not a "fundementalist".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by UNTeMac

Intelligent design requires an expansion of the centuries-old definition of science to include "non-natural" explanations for its main tenant; a designer. No ID proponent has ever proposed that the designer is a natural phenomenon but rather that, by definition, the designer is supernatural.

I'm proposing it right now. The "designer" could well be some sort of intelligent, natural energy form that we yet to understand or fully discover.

Does "science" teach that there may be intelligent life in other solar systems? Surely they don't do they? How could such an wild idea that there is no proof of be forwarded in a science class?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

..and as I stated, the "scientific" process apparently means censoring out possibilities that can not yet be proven....as long as they aren't evolution as the means for the origin of the species.

It's not censorship, it's Occam's razor. The existence of God or an Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven (as clerics and philosophers alike realized some centuries ago) and as such it cannot be part of a scientific theory. So forget about the `not yet', it cannot be proven.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Does "science" teach that there may be intelligent life in other solar systems? Surely they don't do they? How could such an wild idea that there is no proof of be forwarded in a science class?

It's not a testable theory, that's why.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's not censorship, it's Occam's razor. The existence of God or an Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven (as clerics and philosophers alike realized some centuries ago) and as such it cannot be part of a scientific theory. So forget about the `not yet', it cannot be proven.

It's not a testable theory, that's why.

Actually, I've heard of mathematical probability being used to suggest it would be vain of us to believe we're alone.

[Chuckit]

EDIT: Misread. (There really should be a delete button.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Reading comprehension problems?

Evolution as the means for the origin of the species would be a hypothesis. It has not been "proven". Sorry.

How much do you actually know on this subject? Have you read many books by Stephen Jay Gould?

[lurkalot]

...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

As said so many times, there is no such thing as a proven theory, just theories that can explain and predict outcomes of experiments.

You and CharlesS need to come together and decide on a true definition for "theory"...

Originally Posted by CharlesS

A hypothesis is unproven by definition. A theory is not, no matter how much you'd like it to be that way.

It seems that the definition shifts based on the argument.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

A scientific theory is falsifiable whereas ID and Creationism aren't (since you can neither prove the existence or non-existence of God).

If I call out to God in public, and he answers in Charlton Heston's voice from the heavens, would that not prove the existence of God? If so, it is possible to prove that there is a God. It's no more impossible to prove that there is a God than it is to prove a series of possibly unrelated, circumstantial observations are directly responsible for the origin of our species. If there is a God, then my method could well work easily. If evolution truely was the method that the species originated, it's going to take a heck of a lot more effort/work if you ask me, especially since you can't really test evolution in the amounts it's suggested would have had to happen. That's something that takes A LONG time to observe, and so far fossil records haven't been sufficient to prove, while being sufficient to suggest.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Then it seems strange to me that you honestly believe some scientists are motivated to create theories which discredit religion.

No more so than the opposite, since the creation theory has been around a lot longer than the evolution theory.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Actually, I've heard of mathematical probability being used to suggest it would be vain of us to believe we're alone.

Thanks for the answer, but the question was different.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's not censorship, it's Occam's razor. The existence of God or an Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven ....

Yet.

I could say the same thing about evolution as a means to the creation of the origin of the species using the same justification. I won't though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

As said so many times, there is no such thing as a proven theory, just theories that can explain and predict outcomes of experiments. A scientific theory is falsifiable whereas ID and Creationism aren't (since you can neither prove the existence or non-existence of God).

No, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, you can embrace science consonant with theistic suppositions as easily as having to assume purely material suppositions. No one at the CSC or Discovery Institute is suggesting that you must believe in 6-day Creation or the Bible. Their funding is motivated on the same principles that motivated a great many theistic scientists of our past. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about it. In case some would like to finger-point, I'm absolutely defending them now as it appears necessary to squelch the most ridiculous notion of "thought-policing" I find going on in here. We're reminded by science that no matter how "designed" a thing may seem, it is purely natural phenomena. Why? Evidence should suggest whatever it suggests. If a theory is founded on a theistic principle, it should stand or fall as any other. To date, ID has fallen upon deaf ears and with some very good reasons. However, contrary to what many of you believe, the discipline is not as old as the Scopes Monkey trial, but is young and promising. When folks like Miller suggest the "war" isn't over, he's absolutely correct though I'd argue it's not a war any more than questioning the Catholicized "scientific establishment" in the early 1600's was war. Remembering of course that Galileo himself, was a self-proclaimed devout Catholic.

I believe a supposition founded in theistic leaning is no more or less destructive than a supposition founded in materialist thinking. Period. No one in their respective scientific discipline is suggesting "Jesus Christ did it" and any attempt to frame the debate in this light is patently absurd.

True, and like the theory of epicycles to predict the movement of the other planets of the solar system which supposedly revolved around the earth were eventually replaced by a heliocentric model, creationism was replaced by a scientific theory on the origin of the species.

I was generally with you until; "creationism was replaced", unless you're supposing this was the intent of Orgins science. There are many (knowing that the origination of the necessary matter is in question) who suggest that the 'Big Bang' theory has theistic implications. This "curiosity" should not negate the work of those interested in the theory. At the end of the day, there are many things that motivate the disciplines including theistic curiosity, notariety, affluence, naturalistic curiosity, and an interest in the scientific method itself. To assume that all those in science are above the human condition and only those of Christian influence as it relates to science are dogmatic, is preposterous.

Nonsense. First of all, you should omit those superfluous quotation marks since the ideas really are scientific. Then it seems strange to me that you honestly believe some scientists are motivated to create theories which discredit religion. Religious institutions shouldn't meddle with science, but I haven't met one scientist who wanted to discredit faith by scientific theory (which you can't do anyway). Scientists are well aware of the limits of scientific theories whereas the same cannot be said for some religious figures.

I was glad to see the "some religious figures" qualification here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

Originally Posted by stupendousman:
"Non-intelligently designed evolution as a means for the origin of the species HAS been refuted (whether you or a judge are persuaded or not) and yet is still taught. Again, you're confusing proven fact with unproven theory."

By whom? When and where was the refutation published?.

I've seen numerous references to places where people did so right in this thread. Remember, I stated that even "whether you or a judge are persuaded or not", in regards to the refutation. I did not, and am not saying that non-intelligently designed evolution as a means for the origin of the species has been disproven (and in fact stated that it was probably the best guess at this point).

AGAIN, there is a difference between refuting something (which simply requires someone to state a reason for differing with an idea) and disproving it (which requires irrefutable evidence that something is true or false).

Have any of you guys ever taken courses or studied logic?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Thanks for the answer, but the question was different.

No thanks necessary. It was actually a concealed correction of your statement. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm in stupendousman's statement. (In fairness though I suppose it's possible I mistakenly attributed sarcasm when their was none.) The notion that we're not alone has been taught in science class using mathematical probability. I agree, it is not testable, but it is indeed being taught. Not as fact mind you.

[lurkalot]

Nevermind. Don't reply. forget I was ever in this thread. My mistake.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Yet.

I could say the same thing about evolution as a means to the creation of the origin of the species using the same justification. I won't though.

Be more specific: What, specifically, are you saying cannot be measured or tested?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's not what's under discussion here. This thread isn't about whether you should be able to talk about religious ideas in schools, it's about whether science classes should teach religion. I would definitely say the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to preach.

First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court Case 43 U.S. 127; 1844 U.S. LEXIS 323; 11 L. Ed. 205; 2 HOW 127, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.

Again this "new" seperation of Church and state Ideal is a recent liberal history revision.

It has NOTHING to do with what our founding fathers wanted, or how America was meant to be.

First Amendment has been distorted.

And again, Creationism doesn't refute Evolution, and Evolution doesn't refute creationism.

Anyone that thinks they do doesn't understand either.

Heck the Bible even claims we came from dirt.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You and CharlesS need to come together and decide on a true definition for "theory"...

I'm a physicist and my definition of theory might be different of that of CharlesS. But since I was actually taught (and now teach) what theories really are, I am aware of different definitions. Especially in Biology and Medicine, a different, statistical approach is used.

However, you don't seem to have any background in this business.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

If I call out to God in public, and he answers in Charlton Heston's voice from the heavens, would that not prove the existence of God? If so, it is possible to prove that there is a God. It's no more impossible to prove that there is a God than it is to prove a series of possibly unrelated, circumstantial observations are directly responsible for the origin of our species. If there is a God, then my method could well work easily. If evolution truely was the method that the species originated, it's going to take a heck of a lot more effort/work if you ask me, especially since you can't really test evolution in the amounts it's suggested would have had to happen. That's something that takes A LONG time to observe, and so far fossil records haven't been sufficient to prove, while being sufficient to suggest.

First of all, evolution and God don't exclude each other at all. In certain interpretations of Christianity, ID is even excluded (hint: it's connected to free will and the question whether God lives inside or outside of time). Then you assume that if evolution is falsified, Creationism is automatically true. Which is unfortunately not true.

Also, there is no way to prove there is a God, it is a matter of faith and I find it sacrilegious that some people even bother trying to prove it. It usually means that they are insecure about it and feel like they want to prove it for themselves.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

No more so than the opposite, since the creation theory has been around a lot longer than the evolution theory.

So you're saying scientists designed evolution to discredit Christianity? Give me a break.
And the longer a theory has been around has very little to do with its actual validity, rather the opposite: scientists have more time discover the holes in the theory.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So you're saying scientists designed evolution to discredit Christianity? Give me a break.
And the longer a theory has been around has very little to do with its actual validity, rather the opposite: scientists have more time discover the holes in the theory.

I don't think it was designed for such a thing. But people have used it in such a way out of ignorance.

Examples in this thread even.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

That's exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

However, you can embrace science consonant with theistic suppositions as easily as having to assume purely material suppositions. No one at the CSC or Discovery Institute is suggesting that you must believe in 6-day Creation or the Bible. Their funding is motivated on the same principles that motivated a great many theistic scientists of our past. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about it. In case some would like to finger-point, I'm absolutely defending them now as it appears necessary to squelch the most ridiculous notion of "thought-policing" I find going on in here.

It's not thought-policing, but sticking to established scientific principles on how to propose well-defined theories. Occam's razor is certainly one of the main tools (and I would like to point out that Occam was a English Franciscan monk and scholar).

Creationism and its paradoxical twin brother ID fail to be scientific since they cannot make any meaningful predictions. I remember a thread a while ago in the regular Lounge about the question whether God lives inside of time (i. e. he `meddles' in human affairs actively) or outside of time (i. e. people have free will and full control over their lives). I don't remember which side you were on (if any at all), but if you were to believe God exists outside of time, Creationism and ID would be impossible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We're reminded by science that no matter how "designed" a thing may seem, it is purely natural phenomena. Why? Evidence should suggest whatever it suggests. If a theory is founded on a theistic principle, it should stand or fall as any other. To date, ID has fallen upon deaf ears and with some very good reasons. However, contrary to what many of you believe, the discipline is not as old as the Scopes Monkey trial, but is young and promising. When folks like Miller suggest the "war" isn't over, he's absolutely correct though I'd argue it's not a war any more than questioning the Catholicized "scientific establishment" in the early 1600's was war. Remembering of course that Galileo himself, was a self-proclaimed devout Catholic.

And remembering Galileo `renounced' his theories at gunpoint, because the Catholic Church didn't want him to spread his ideas.
Nowadays

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I believe a supposition founded in theistic leaning is no more or less destructive than a supposition founded in materialist thinking. Period. No one in their respective scientific discipline is suggesting "Jesus Christ did it" and any attempt to frame the debate in this light is patently absurd.

You must have missed my posts earlier on.
A live based on either alone is meaningless. Only both of them combined give a whole.

But science is about logic and what you call materialistic way of thinking and religion about the other half.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I was generally with you until; "creationism was replaced", unless you're supposing this was the intent of Orgins science. There are many (knowing that the origination of the necessary matter is in question) who suggest that the 'Big Bang' theory has theistic implications. This "curiosity" should not negate the work of those interested in the theory. At the end of the day, there are many things that motivate the disciplines including theistic curiosity, notariety, affluence, naturalistic curiosity, and an interest in the scientific method itself. To assume that all those in science are above the human condition and only those of Christian influence as it relates to science are dogmatic, is preposterous.

Theistic curiosity has its place. Physics cannot tell us `why' there was a Big Bang (if we assume for a second or two that there was such a thing). There are more than enough questions which have to be answered on a philosophical and religious level that do not concern scientific and physical theories.

Why do you think scientists are driven to find out how things work? If they believed that there was no purpose, no meaning in life, there was no motivation for them to do any of their work. It won't make any sense anyway.

I haven't said any Christian scientist are dogmatic attitude is incorrect. I know and work with many Christian (as well as Jewish and Buddhist, Shintoist) scientists. None of them worked any differently than those scientists I worked with who are atheists. I'm objecting to those who want to force their religious point of view on science.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I was glad to see the "some religious figures" qualification here.

More specifically Popes, Ayatollahs and mullahs as well as heads of other Churches. Basically people who claim that their interpretation of the respective faith is the `right' one.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court Case 43 U.S. 127; 1844 U.S. LEXIS 323; 11 L. Ed. 205; 2 HOW 127, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.

Again this "new" seperation of Church and state Ideal is a recent liberal history revision.

It has NOTHING to do with what our founding fathers wanted, or how America was meant to be.

I suppose that's why Thomas Jefferson described it as a "wall of separation between Church and State." Because the founding fathers didn't intend separation of church and state…

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think it was designed for such a thing. But people have used it in such a way out of ignorance.

Examples in this thread even.

Even if you feel this way, it has zero impact on the validity of evolution.
Some people were also offended when they found out the Earth is not the center of the universe.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No thanks necessary. It was actually a concealed correction of your statement. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm in stupendousman's statement. (In fairness though I suppose it's possible I mistakenly attributed sarcasm when their was none.) The notion that we're not alone has been taught in science class using mathematical probability. I agree, it is not testable, but it is indeed being taught. Not as fact mind you.

Since we can even observe other planets in distant solar systems, I would say the probability we are alone is negligible

If stupendousman was sarcastic, it wasn't even a tickler, so my humor-o-meter missed it.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It takes a living being to create another living being according to Biogenesis.

In order for that to be true, there has to be a living being from the start right? Well what created that being?

Ah, but that's not what that link you provided said.

Originally Posted by Kevin's link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis)

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". They showed that life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature. They did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.

What biogenesis says, according to the link you posted, is that life does not arise in its present forms, such as a fly, a cockroach, or a creationist, from non-living matter. Since modern life forms are quite complex things, this seems somewhat intuitive. It doesn't say that some very primitive life-form much simpler than any of the modern examples (well, maybe not the creationist ) could not have formed. But that's beyond the scope of what evolution is about anyway.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

However, you don't seem to have any background in this business.

Your appeal to experience logical fallacy is noted, as is the notion that there are many valid definitions for the word "theory" in science.

Also, there is no way to prove there is a God, it is a matter of faith and I find it sacrilegious that some people even bother trying to prove it.

You're excluding the possibilty that "God" is some sort of energy force which could possibly be measured or my senario above which would prove there is a "God".

So you're saying scientists designed evolution to discredit Christianity? Give me a break.

I was refuting the notion that theories involving a "higher intelligent power" where developed in order to discredit science, when in fact most have been around a lot longer.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I suppose that's why Thomas Jefferson described it as a "wall of separation between Church and State." Because the founding fathers didn't intend separation of church and state…

I suppose since Thomas Jefferson was one guy, and most of the rest of the guys involved didn't ascribe to Jefferson's notions, your point would be moot.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Evolution as the means for the origin of the species would be a hypothesis. It has not been "proven". Sorry.

Uh, what? So evolution's not a theory anymore, now that it's been pointed out that theory doesn't mean what you want it to mean?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You and CharlesS need to come together and decide on a true definition for "theory"...

Nah, it's the definition of "proof" that's different. Oreo is using the word "proof" in an absolute, mathematical sense. Of course, since we defined all the laws and basics of mathematics and can therefore completely understand them, this is true for mathematics. Since we can never prove anything in science in the same way that we can in mathematics, the mathematical definition of "proof" is not very useful in science, and usually when you see the word used in relation to scientific theories, the word "proof" simply means that a theory is supported by the evidence well enough to make the jump from a hypothesis to a theory. Of course, proof in this sense is not absolute proof, which is impossible in science, and it's always possible to disprove any theory if you find appropriate evidence to do so (and no, creationism does not fit the bill).

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I suppose since Thomas Jefferson was one guy, and most of the rest of the guys involved didn't ascribe to Jefferson's notions, your point would be moot.

I guess that's why Madison mentioned it too (someone posted a quote earlier in the thread).

If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I suppose since Thomas Jefferson was one guy, and most of the rest of the guys involved didn't ascribe to Jefferson's notions, your point would be moot.

Can you offer a quote from a founding father saying the First Amendment meant that the government is supposed to promote Christianity? Otherwise, maybe you should go with the evidence.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Your appeal to experience logical fallacy is noted, as is the notion that there are many valid definitions for the word "theory" in science.

All of them contain the idea that a theory is testable. Intelligent Design is not.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You're excluding the possibilty that "God" is some sort of energy force which could possibly be measured or my senario above which would prove there is a "God".

Oh, please.
Then God is not an intelligent design, but an energy field which can be described by physics. I don't believe this is the God other people in this thread have in mind.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I was refuting the notion that theories involving a "higher intelligent power" where developed in order to discredit science, when in fact most have been around a lot longer.

Sure, we could eventually find out that Earth is nothing but a big labratory for smart animals/beings. Douglas Adams has already covered this one, I believe. Possible, but not very likely Since this is nothing to do so we can prove your claim (other than to wait for these smart beings to appear before us), we should use Occam's razor to eliminate this funny idea from our theories.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Wrong. Hypothesizing such would be appropriate, but theorizing requires empirical evidence, and there is none for intelligent designers (yet?).

You're going to have to get your definitions straight. According to your post, not only does there have to be evidence, but enough to definitively prove something.

No, in reality I didn't. You must be playing some kind of prank, because no one is really this stupid.

Does "science" teach that there may be intelligent life in other solar systems? Surely they don't do they?

No. It doesn't.

..and as I stated, the "scientific" process apparently means censoring out possibilities that can not yet be proven

There's a difference between not endorsing your belief and censoring you. The scientific community has no obligation to endorse your archaic belief system, but that doesn't mean their censoring you in any form.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You're excluding the possibilty that "God" is some sort of energy force which could possibly be measured or my senario above which would prove there is a "God".

If you found a way to detect God, then intelligent design might be able to have a scientific basis. Until that day, however, God is (scientifically speaking) a mere hypothesis.

[UNTeMac]

Damnit, don't any of you ID guys read? Scientific theory is NOT a guess. It is a highly complex series of predictions that the evidence has conformed to. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis and needs evidence to become a theory.

ID is not a theory. It's an interesting hypothesis but unfortunately, ID proponents have provided no empirical data, research or studies for scientific review. They simply provide a negative argument against evolution and those negative arguments keep getting disproven.

If you want ID in the classroom, then research it. Submit your research to a major scientific organization and see if it stands up to scrutiny. You may then respond to critics with your own rebuttal until you ALL come to consensus. That's science.

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, you can embrace science consonant with theistic suppositions as easily as having to assume purely material suppositions.<snip>

This stuck out at me as the exact kind of thing the Dover trial brought to light about ID proponents. Are you saying is you want science to expand it's traditional framework to include supernatural explanations?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I suppose that's why Thomas Jefferson described it as a "wall of separation between Church and State." Because the founding fathers didn't intend separation of church and state…

I've already covered that in the last page.

Here I will post it AGAIN.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term "wall of separation between church and state" to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away. While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity.

And How do we know this?

This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court Case 43 U.S. 127; 1844 U.S. LEXIS 323; 11 L. Ed. 205; 2 HOW 127, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.


Thomas's wall was talking about the Gov controlling religion.

NOT religion in the Gov. As such was practiced at the time.

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've already covered that in the last page.

Here I will post it AGAIN.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term "wall of separation between church and state" to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away. While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity.

And How do we know this?

This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court Case 43 U.S. 127; 1844 U.S. LEXIS 323; 11 L. Ed. 205; 2 HOW 127, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.


Thomas's wall was talking about the Gov controlling religion.

NOT religion in the Gov. As such was practiced at the time.

This is why we have a legal precedent system where you can't just pick and choose the cases that support you. There are many, many other cases where the more modern (as in 19th century) view of separation of church and state has been accepted so it's not just a recent creation by those liberals you all like you go on and on about. Try reading the ENTIRE Wikipedia article instead of just quoting the part that supports your position.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Uh, what? So evolution's not a theory anymore, now that it's been pointed out that theory doesn't mean what you want it to mean?

There are 2 different concepts we are dealing with. General "evolution", which pretty much deals with adaptations organisms can make in order to help it cope with it's living processes, and the notion that such a thing could result in the creation of our species from much simpler organisms. You can show that something "evolves" without that meaning that evolution on a massive scale grand enough to go from single cell organism to complex human being. In other words, proven one does not equal proving the other.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I guess that's why Madison mentioned it too (someone posted a quote earlier in the thread).

Keep going...you're soon to run out. On the other hand, I can cite more than didn't agree with Jefferson. Otherwise, those guys in wigs would have agreed to Jefferson's original wording.

If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Just a United States with a Constitution as the majority of our founding fathers intended would suffice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Can you offer a quote from a founding father saying the First Amendment meant that the government is supposed to promote Christianity? Otherwise, maybe you should go with the evidence.

Where did I say that it was meant specfically to promote Christianity over any other form of religion? Boy...the strawmen sure are taking over this corn field!

While I don't think such a thing should be the case, Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"(1868) has surmised that:

"at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

All of them contain the idea that a theory is testable. Intelligent Design is not.

How exactly do you "test" whether I am an ancestor of a single cell organism?

Oh, please.
Then God is not an intelligent design, but an energy field which can be described by physics. I don't believe this is the God other people in this thread have in mind.

Who cares? It's obvious that it's easier to argue "other people's" points instead of mine which would require any intellectually honest person to consider as a reasonable explanation.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

There are 2 different concepts we are dealing with. General "evolution", which pretty much deals with adaptations organisms can make in order to help it cope with it's living processes, and the notion that such a thing could result in the creation of our species from much simpler organisms. You can show that something "evolves" without that meaning that evolution on a massive scale grand enough to go from single cell organism to complex human being. In other words, proven one does not equal proving the other.

Yeah, unfortunately (for you) the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution involves the formation of new species as well.

Congratulations, you just earned the rare and dubious honor of being on my ignore list.

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

There are 2 different concepts we are dealing with. General "evolution", which pretty much deals with adaptations organisms can make in order to help it cope with it's living processes, and the notion that such a thing could result in the creation of our species from much simpler organisms. You can show that something "evolves" without that meaning that evolution on a massive scale grand enough to go from single cell organism to complex human being. In other words, proven one does not equal proving the other.

I am sorry, but I am having a little bit of difficulty seeing on which point you are arguing. If it is on the origin of life, then you are dealing with numerous different hypotheses with varying degrees of probability, none of which is nearly as solid as any scientific theory (hence, they are not referred to as such).

However, it seems that you are arguing about the validity of evolution of humans from single-celled organisms. If that is indeed the case, then you are still correct - proving general evolution does not necessarily prove that all organisms came from a single origin. That requires a certain degree of logical explanation and molecular evidence.

There is much molecular evidence, much of which I will not go into here. I will, however, state one of the more compelling pieces - humans share a huge number of genes with prokaryotes, simple bacteria. For example, glycolysis, the pathway to break down simple sugars to pyruvate, is virtually unchanged in every living organism on the planet. This leads to the logical explanation - Occam's Razor. It is much easier to say, especially in light of present molecular evidence, that all these organisms with such similarities must have evolved from the same origin.

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

How exactly do you "test" whether I am an ancestor of a single cell organism?

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on speciation and examples of such. You can plug your ears but it's true. Your question again proves that ID advocates can only negatively argue evolution rather than positively argue their own position.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by UNTeMac

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on speciation and examples of such. You can plug your ears but it's true. Your question again proves that ID advocates can only negatively argue evolution rather than positively argue their own position.

You didn't answer the question.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by evfish84

I am sorry, but I am having a little bit of difficulty seeing on which point you are arguing. If it is on the origin of life, then you are dealing with numerous different hypotheses with varying degrees of probability, none of which is nearly as solid as any scientific theory (hence, they are not referred to as such).

But for some reason, hypotheses which do not involve evolution are not allowed in schools, and are shunned by organized "science". That's my point. People who like to think of themselves as "scientists" are engaging in attempts to censor learning when it might mean that their biases are challenged.

Again...remember, I don't refute general evolutionary mechanisms or even the possibility that we evolved from single cells. What I do refute is the notion that such a thing is a "settled" and proven fact when it is not.

There is much molecular evidence, much of which I will not go into here. I will, however, state one of the more compelling pieces - humans share a huge number of genes with prokaryotes, simple bacteria. For example, glycolysis, the pathway to break down simple sugars to pyruvate, is virtually unchanged in every living organism on the planet. This leads to the logical explanation - Occam's Razor.

That the same intelligent force who created humans created prokaryotes, since it's logical for this force to use the same kind of mechanisms in multiple organisms since it works so well?

[CharlesS]

Just to preempt a whole bunch of useless discussion, I'm going to summarize the discussion that's about to ensue:

Originally Posted by What I'm trying to avoid

stupendousman: Evolution can change a species, but it can't create a new species!

Someone else: Yes it can, here are some links documenting cases where scientists have observed the formation of a new species of fruit fly/bacterium/worm/plant/whatever.

stupendousman: Yes, but that new species is still a fruit fly/bacterium/worm/plant/whatever!!!

Someone else: So what, it's a new species. That's what you asked for.

stupendousman: Not good enough! It has to change directly from a fruit fly into a giraffe right in front of my eyes, or I won't buy it!!!!!!

I will preemptively reply to this with a little analogy:

Two snails are sitting on the ground just south of the Kansas-Nebraska border.

Snail #1: It is impossible to get anywhere other than exactly where you are. This proves that God placed us right here, in Kansas. Snails that are in any other place must have been specially put there by God as well, because travel is impossible.

Snail #2: That's not true - you just have to go a bit north of here, and you'll be in Nebraska.

Snail #1: Yeah, but it's still the same country, isn't it? So there! That proves travel is impossible. Why can't I go north and get to Canada, huh?

Snail #2: Well, getting to Canada would take a long time, well beyond the lifetime of a snail. But if you had a group of snails travel north, their descendants could eventually reach Canada.

Snail #1: I don't believe it! I have to be able to get from here to Canada instantly, or it will not shake my belief that movement is impossible!

Snail #2: ..............

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Congratulations, you just earned the rare and dubious honor of being on my ignore list.

Hurrah! Someone who ignored most of what I wrote and seems to disagree with a lot of other people as to the definitions he's using, is ignoring me.. :applause: