Intelligent Design debate I'm having at the moment
Sorry everybody, this is quite a long one, but if you could read it and offer me any further advice or sources to help fill out my arguements that would be great. I have put my opponents in italics and my own comments in plain text
<i>OLD) Posted By: Brink on Thu Mar 29 15:28:37 CEST 2007
seems like u have a bigger beef with god than ID...but thats my 2cents. You seem to associate a belief in God as backwards and that the only true sign of civilization is progress and that that progress cannot include a healthy belief in God.</i>
You are probably correct there, in that I have a bigger beef with God than with Intelligent Design, but even more so with organised religion. After all you can't have intelligent design without any intelligent designer. Also correct, a belief in God is backwards, progress should eventually banish God, and a belief in God isn't especially healthy anymore.
<i>I just dont see how you can throw around galileo without understanding galileo. Copernicus and Galileo couldnt prove their ideas when they asserted them. Furthermore Galileo belived that the tides were due to the sun not the moon this means THAT galileo wasnt always right and that in some cases he was dead wrong. Also, Galileo was a devout catholic and considered a clergyman.</i>
Well... I didn't mention Galileo, but... are you kidding me? At the time it was not a smart move to proclaim non-relious beliefs to anybody, so I refute your calling on him as arguing from a religious perspective. Personally I think he went about as far as anybody could dare to go against the Church at the time and that says a lot, but obviously I can't say whether he would have denounced his faith if he had the opportunity, and you can't either. Who cares that he was wrong on some things? I'm sure if he had the means for more evidence before the end of his life, he would have happily changed his mind. Can Intelligent Design supporters say the same? Obviously not because they are ignoring real observable evidence all the time. The fact that we no longer believe the tides are due to the sun is tribute to the fact that real claims are never, and should never be, free from the requirement of testing and being updated to match the reality as close as we can.
<i> Most of modern science is founded on religion and only in recent times has our society seemed to want to separate science with religion as if religion is some quasi-science. Furthermore, to claim that secular knowledge supercedes religious knowledge seems to only exist within the last 50 years of our society. One can look at the witchhunts of reformation Europe and compare the trials of the roman/spanish Inquisition to the secular courts of Germany/Swiss where they executed people 68% of the time vs the inquisitions 12%.</i>
I agree with your first sentence here. For most of human history God was the best explanation for the existence and nature of the physical universe. Unfortunately for God and religion, in recent times there have been other theories postulated that have several things going for them, like being more logical, consistent and backed by evidence. The effect of this is of course the reduction of religion into quasi science (at best). (my wording here influenced by a bbc website). I'm not sure what your reference to the witchhunts and inquisitions vs so called secular trials is supposed to be demonstrating, but I have a few questions. Is it that the witchunters and inquisitioners' religious knowledge superceded the knowledge of the 'secular' courts? Are these examples from similar time periods? However if this is what you are trying to say then I would like to remind you what each of these examples were trialling. On one side you have people being tried for... what exactly? Being a bit eccentric? Being called a *female dog* and somebody misheard the word? No reason? Also on this side you have people being tried for believing in a different book. What was being tried in the secular courts?
<i>The point Im trying to make is that you seem to be unable to accept that the reason why everything is organized as some initial causation that points to God. Whether we want it to or not, until we have more proof...this is how it stands.</i>
I'm not sure if you've miswritten something there, I don't think your first sentence makes sense, grammatically and I'm don't know what you're trying to say. The universe behaves as we would expect it to in the absence of a God.
<i> But, phoon[e]y you really come across as if your trying to take God down and champion humanity with a religion of progress instead of using reason.</i>
Not quite what I was trying to convey. Through logic, reason, evidence and testing comes progress is what I mean. Through ignorance (I do not mean to use this word with the baggage of all its negative connotations, I simply mean ignoring evidence), Dogma and faith comes stagnation.
<i>But, even Sartre had a priest on his deathbed...and you dont come close to rivaling his passion nor intelligence.</i>
I won't contend that I come anywhere near being in the same ballpark as this man for passion or intelligence, thanks for reminding me though. However, even if this is true about having a priest at his deathbed, I wouldn't be rushing to blame him. I could even attempt to give a Darwinian explaination for it! Death is scary because having a healthy fear of death adds survival value for the genes that cause it and the organism that carries the genes. Fear has always been one of the most potent weapons of the church, and they don't miss an opportunity to capitalise on it.
<i>You want a bone to chew on, defeat conservation of energy---how can energy neither be created no destroyed yet already exist in a finite form?---again use logic of today and please dont resort to well we will eventually find out progress ftw idea.</i>
Well, I'm not even sure conservation of energy needs to be defeated. You've already got the idea in your head that something can have existed forever, why not the universe? We already have strong evidence the universe exists, but nothing to indicate an Intelligent designer. Why just make something up to fill a gap in knowledge? You haven't solved anything by doing this and the "God of the Gaps" (phrase borrowed from Richard Dawkins, not sure if he is the origin of this term) is going to have less and less gaps to be god over. This is what I meant earlier in this post about progress eventually banishing God. For example, God used to be the magical loving light that chased away the darkness at the beginning of each day and gave life to the earth. Now we know that is the Sun. God used to be the explaination for the diversity and beauty and wonderful efficiency of nature all around us, now evolution goes a long way in explaining this.
I never said I have all the answers right now. As I mentioned before (and I believe I was supported by Kevin) it's ok to not know, the important thing is to keep on trying to learn. Yes, I'm afraid I am going to have to 'resort' to "well we will eventually find out..PROGRESS!" Due to the historical evidence of the unknowable becoming common knowledge, I have very high hopes for the future of human knowledge and I would be very hesitant to throw around the word 'never' in regards to what we will eventually know.
<i>But, phooney i apologize if i came across rude or wrong in what your replies seemed to contain, however there is a piece of many if you care to discredit it go for it.</i>
Not at all, it will take more than that to offend me. I appreciate that you seem to have put some thought into your stance. I was somewhat resentful of your comment "btw do you even know anything about galileo galilei, jean-paul sartre, Steven Hawkins, Mendel, a good enough grasp of the science/philosophy that they contain" as I've tried to read as widely as possible.
<i>Becaused half what I keep reading is lol---blackholes lol this is what i read somewhere and it agrees with my views therefore it must be right lol.</i>
Oddly enough, this sentiment very much reminds me of what I hear from 'your' side of the argument. I will admit that I haven't done every single one of the experiments that I read about, nor have I even done MANY of them. I don't have an advanced degree in physics, chemistry, biology etc. However when reading about these experiments etc, they at least do set out testable criteria for their findings, and they are answerable to their peers who are free to set out opposing criteria and present other evidence. As far as religion and intelligent design are concerned, the entity that their theories are supposed to be answerable to hasn't exactly done much to sway the argument in their favour or correct any errors in their version of events.
<i> I want to clear up i am not some fundamentalist Christian or do I believe the earth was created in 7 days or adam and Eve are real. I believe there is a combination of bigbangtheory/Id until more evidence is yielded to modify further. I look at it like the word atom--smallest building block of life....it was when they named it. However as we know it isnt anymore protons-quarks...but that is what our human limits knew and we have a fascination with defining what we dont know so. That is the same way with cosmology.</i>
See this! This is exactly the right mind-set. Unfortunately at this stage you haven't presented me with any evidence to consider, could this be due to a lack of evidence supporting your ideas?
<i>OLD) Posted By: Jimmy on Thu Mar 29 18:34:19 CEST 2007
I'm not gonna go into all the evidence for ID cuz A) it would take to lond and B) i can't remember it all. i only remember certain points that were relevant to my own personal theory.</i>
This makes me lol. However, I don't require you to give me all the evidence for ID, just present it a little bit at a time if you like.
<i>If you want all the evidence either go to the Museum in New York or find the Times article (which I will post the name and date of if I can find it, don't know if i still have that magazine lying around the house or not).</i>
Unfortunately not everybody in the world lives in New York and I'm pretty sure there aren't very many equivalent places because I would guess museum pieces that support this must be very short in supply.
<i>Oh and since everyone is tearing up ID, I guess I'll have to throw my 2cents in about facts that make evolution look wrong. Since we're so caught up on probablilty I guess I'll use this one. NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN MACRO EVOLUTION OCCUR!! Yes, we've seen micro evolution, but most ID people believe in micro evolution. However, no1 has ever seen one species evolve into another. I know evolution theory is less than 200 years old, but based on the total # of animals on this planet, some species had to undergo macro evolution during that time, yet no1 has seen it. Probablility says someone should have seen it.</i>
I'm not sure you've grasped the timescale of macro evolution, did you expect to see a giant squid giving birth to a dinosaur or something? How about this though, I think most people would agree that a lion and a tiger are two different animals, and yet you can see they are similar in many ways. In fact their evolutionary tree branched recently enough for their genes to be similar enough for them to still be able to mate with each other and produce viable offspring.
<i>I'll admit alot of ID people have some crazy theories. All I'm trying to say is that the people who stick to valid science have pretty much as strong reason to support ID as evolution.</i>
Then I repeat, show me this evidence.