One atheist's motivation

[TenDimensions]

After reading one particular post leveling some series charges against atheists on this web site, I thought it would be appropriate to try and explain my point of view as an atheist. Other atheists may agree with me or they may not, but I’m not trying to speak for all of them.

To begin with, all atheists are not interested in trying to get people to abandon their religious beliefs and have them fall into massive depression at the sudden realization that we are all just particles. The vast majority of atheists you wouldn’t even recognize or realize they were unless you asked them straight up. There are probably even more agnostics around you that you wouldn’t know about. Why then do I, as an atheist, post here and argue with Christian believers?

One reason is that a believer who is a regular reader here invited me. She and I have been through numerous knock down, dragged out fights and she thought she’d introduce me to this little corner of the Internet. The main reason I post here, though, is not to get people to stop believing. I don’t really think that would ever happen anyway. Actually, I think atheism is a belief that is unattractive to most who marvel at the universe and feel a deep need to have an answer to it all. Why then do I bother?

In the United States a movement that began nearly the day after Darwin proposed his theory appears to be growing in strength and threatening to change the face of science curriculums all over the country. That movement of course, is Creationism and in its latest incarnation known as Intelligent Design (ID). Science has a long history of discovering new facts about the world that no one really wants to hear and evolution is certainly no different. But that never made science wrong in the past and it doesn't make evolution wrong now.

Science deals exclusively with the realm of the physical – “materialism” as some have spat from their mouths in disgust. Science has some very good reasons for dealing with the physical, not the least of which is that it can be experimented and tested on. Theology deals with everything beyond the physical. The metaphysical how’s and why’s of the universe are the realm of theology, but the causes and effects of the universe are the sole realm of science.

Evolution is a scientific theory popularly held by a vast, overwhelming majority of scientists. No part of the evolutionary theory ever claims there is no God and it certainly doesn’t make any claims that Christianity is wrong. Why then do a group of people, known by some as Fundamentalists, feel that evolution must be attacked and unveiled as some half-baked, poorly constructed hypothesis that has scientists either completely duped or part of the great conspiracy that plots to overrun the world with evil materialistic minions?

Some believe that science and religion can co-exist peacefully. Some even believe they can be compatible. I am not one of those people. I believe that while religion believes in the whole being more than the sum of its parts, science is about reductionism. While religion has faith at its core, science has skepticism.

When proponents of ID theory begin to try and claim scientific evidence for their “counter-theory” to evolution I find myself dismayed, shocked, and troubled. No scientific theory will ever end with an intelligent designer for a variety of reasons that no doubt the ID proponents will disagree with whole-heartedly. That doesn’t make the ID theory any less believable or should prevent people from firmly believing in it. What it does make ID theory, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a theological proposal. It may be a theological idea that contains some scientific data, but that doesn’t make it science any more than Darwinism makes for an excellent set of morals and values.

What I believe I am witnessing in the United States is nothing less than another Copernicus Revolution with evolution being attacked by those who feel it threatens the foundation of everything they believe in when in fact, the vast majority of evolutionists couldn’t care less about any religious creation stories. I’d be willing to bet that while atheists accept evolution as the factual scientific theory that it is, many, many, many more evolutionists are not atheists at all!

When I read in the paper or on the Net about another state education board deciding what to do about ID theory and evolution I become frightened for those students. Legitimate competing scientific theories do not attempt to subvert the scientific method by getting their ideas prematurely inserted into school curriculums. They publish, debate, and propose their theories to their peers and equals. A legitimate scientific theory does not need to be taught to young and impressionable minds before the scientific community has approved it. This is nothing short of complete subversion of the education system in the U.S. and it sickens me.

As a parent if you chose to believe in something and teach it to your children that is your business. It is your right to discuss with your child any lesson they’ve learned in school and tell them it’s wrong or not thoroughly proven or whatever you want to tell them. What you don’t have the right to do is to change the science curriculum in direct defiance of what the worldwide scientific community has not established as a valid competing theory.

And so that is my biggest reason for posting here. There are still a few other ancillary reasons such as what I perceive as the inherent intolerance whenever a person takes the stance in theology discussions that they are right and others are wrong. I am just attempting to shed light on what I feel is the clear distinction between theology and science in the hopes that I can make a difference in the world.

[jason]

Science has a long history of discovering new facts about the world that no one really wants to hear and evolution is certainly no different. But that never made science wrong in the past and it doesn't make evolution wrong now.
Perhaps, but are you willing to admit that you actually need evolution as a plank of you worldview. Richard Dawkins rather gave the game away when he said "evolution allows me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Now it might be true, but would you agree that you will fight tooth an nail to preserve something that is foundational to the belief system you have adopted ?

I understand you can't give an inch because your whole belief system crumbles into nothing without a purely naturalistic account of origins, but do you realise this bias you might have ?

I had another atheist on another board gleefully point out to me that most leading scientists are atheists of one stripe or another. But given that is the case doens't this simply suggest some bias ?

Science deals exclusively with the realm of the physical – “materialism” as some have spat from their mouths in disgust. Science has some very good reasons for dealing with the physical, not the least of which is that it can be experimented and tested on.
Yet you are extending it to making claims about the past that cannot be experimented on or tested. Please don't confuse the sort of science that puts men on the moon and gives us nuclear power with the sort of science thats says we evolved over millions of years. They really are not compariable.

but the causes and effects of the universe are the sole realm of science.
And the universe got here how then ?

Evolution is a scientific theory popularly held by a vast, overwhelming majority of scientists.
So was phlogiston, the geocentric universe, vitalism and newtonian mechanics. What does that prove ? that scientists are fallible ? The idea above where finally over turned when the last of its adherents died. What makes you think this round will be any different ?

No part of the evolutionary theory ever claims there is no God and it certainly doesn’t make any claims that Christianity is wrong.
Why then do the likes of richard dawkins talk as if it does ?


:rofl:

What it does make ID theory, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a theological proposal. It may be a theological idea that contains some scientific data, but that doesn’t make it science any more than Darwinism makes for an excellent set of morals and values.
And yet dawkins uses the very idea you are stumping for here as an atheological argument. Also, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but there is nothing theological about ID at all, and the principles involved are just the same principles that you would freely acfcept elsehwer in science applied to biology.

That you have a philisophical presupposition that excludes the possiblity of this speaks more to your own bias than anything else.
[quotq]What I believe I am witnessing in the United States is nothing less than another Copernicus Revolution with evolution being attacked by those who feel it threatens the foundation
Umm ... point of order. Copernicus was attacked by his fellow scientists who went and reved the church up and gor him accused of heresy. The Pope at the tine thought his ideas where quite interesting.

What you don’t have the right to do is to change the science curriculum in direct defiance of what the worldwide scientific community has not established as a valid competing theory.
Actually given the scant evidence for evolution I don't think either should be taught in science classes.

Do you even recognise your own bias ?

Jason

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:33 PM
jason:

So was phlogiston, the geocentric universe, vitalism and newtonian mechanics. What does that prove ? that scientists are fallible ? The idea above where finally over turned when the last of its adherents died. What makes you think this round will be any different ?


Newtonian mechanics is wrong? Who said that? Which law is wrong? Are you implying momentum is not conserved, or that reaction and action are not equal? Or that bodies do not continue in a straight line? (I admit Einstein redefined what a straight line was, but the law is still accurate)

Vitalism was, of course, a doctrine drawn up for theological reasons.

You can also add fixity of species and a Global Flood to the list of beliefs held by all scientists at one time.

As for your claim that evolution will be overturned when the last of its proponents are dead, this might be true, but issuing fatwas is not normal scientific procedure.

[stevencarrwork]

Jason
'Also, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but there is nothing theological about ID at all, and the principles involved are just the same principles that you would freely acfcept elsehwer in science applied to biology.'

You will now tell us where Dembski's ideas have been referenced in other fields of science.



Perhaps you can name one, just one, I'm not asking for two, one will do, object, not known already to be designed, which Demsbki has identified as designed in other fields of science, using his techniques.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:33 PM
jason:
Perhaps, but are you willing to admit that you actually need evolution as a plank of you worldview.
It probably makes you feel better to think that atheists have some sort of 'worldview', with evolution as a 'plank', but you're quite mistaken.

Evolution is a fact. But if it wasn't, so what? If a different theory came along tomorrow, and it made more sense, I'd be quite happy to change my views.

Even without the theory of evolution - or any other substitute theory - I'd still find the idea of a magical all-knowing sky man to be completely ridiculous, so you're wrong in assuming that evolution is some kind of crutch to help us ignore your God.

Paul

[TenDimensions]

Thanks for responding, Jason.



jason:
Perhaps, but are you willing to admit that you actually need evolution as a plank of you worldview. Richard Dawkins rather gave the game away when he said "evolution allows me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Sorry, as someone already posted there were atheists well before there ever has a naturalistic theory for how we got here. All Dawkins is pointing out is that now atheists have the start of an origin theory rather than just shrugging their shoulders. If another scientific theory came along I'd be happy to accept it. That's another difference between religion and science - if evolution is proven wrong by way of a better scientific theory I'm still a scientist. If somehow Christ were proven to have not existed you cease to be a Christian.


Now it might be true, but would you agree that you will fight tooth an nail to preserve something that is foundational to the belief system you have adopted ?

Like I said, if a better competing theory came alone I'd willingly give it up. I will admit I consider the possibility extremely unlikely given how evolution theory has been successfully now applied to not just genetic evolution, but how it ties in with the extended phenotype (perhaps making evolution the quantum mechanics of biology) and how evolution has been applied to ideas and culture (a.k.a. memes and meme-complexes).


I understand you can't give an inch because your whole belief system crumbles into nothing without a purely naturalistic account of origins, but do you realise this bias you might have ?

My "belief system" is simply that while something supernatural could exist it can't possibly have any interactions with the physical world because then it would have to exist in physical reality! And if that were the case science would eventually know about it. In addition to that little paradox, there is the matter that once you abandon natural law during discussions of the supernatural anything the imagination can dream up is now plausible.

So if you feel better thinking this is a bias then you go ahead and believe that. I can tell you though, atheists do not need to have a naturalistic explanations for origins. In fact, I can prove this to you beyond a shadow of a doubt:

The entire atheistic school of thought is that while the human brain may come up with metaphysical questions such as "Why am I here?" the atheist has long decided there are no answers to those questions that do not originate from within the same brain that created those questions in the first place. Therefore, it matters little to the atheist what the answer to "origins" really is since they have long ago decided those questions were unimportant.

So you see, the very definition of atheist means that while atheists would accept a naturalistic explanation of origins, the question itself is merely academic and one of science with very little emotion invested in it. I truly think believers completely lack the capability to understand that someone could reach the conclusions that an atheist has reached. In fact, I'm pretty sure that each and every believer deep down thinks that each and every atheist is lying to themselves.


I had another atheist on another board gleefully point out to me that most leading scientists are atheists of one stripe or another. But given that is the case doens't this simply suggest some bias ?

If it were true, but I'm not so sure that is true. And no doubt a certain amount of bias exists in everything people do - but that's exactly what the scientific method has been designed to cancel out!


Yet you are extending it to making claims about the past that cannot be experimented on or tested. Please don't confuse the sort of science that puts men on the moon and gives us nuclear power with the sort of science thats says we evolved over millions of years. They really are not compariable.

This is something I've heard before which is unfortunately a common misconception. Plenty of scientific theories exist that can not be directly tested or experimented on. I could go into this further, but I've found that people don't want to listen.


And the universe got here how then ?

This is a question for theologians and theoretical physicists. Both have very interesting answers, although, theoretical physicists tend to look at the cosmological evidence and use math. It's still an academic question that doesn't keep atheists up at night.


So was phlogiston, the geocentric universe, vitalism and newtonian mechanics. What does that prove ? that scientists are fallible ? The idea above where finally over turned when the last of its adherents died. What makes you think this round will be any different ?

I'm hoping that's exactly the case... with ID proponents! :rofl:


Why then do the likes of richard dawkins talk as if it does?

Richard Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and outright opponent of all religion. While I can't say I disagree with anything he says, I do think his methodologies cause more people to go to the far right rather than get them to try and understand what he's saying. His books are fabulous explanations of many good, sound, theories and unforunately too many believers think he is the devil incarnate. You want to talk about bias...


And yet dawkins uses the very idea you are stumping for here as an atheological argument.

This is simply not true. What you're referring to is that he's said that if you must have an answer to origins, evolution provides an answer that makes the creation of a god for the purposes of origins explanation unnecessary. Personally, I feel this tact will never work for the same reasons I mentioned above, only in reverse. If a person must have answers to the metaphysical questions and must feel that those answers exist outside themselves they will always believe in a god of one sort or another. This does not preclude the person from accepting the scientific principles behind evolution - there are plenty of evolutionists who are theists.


Also, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but there is nothing theological about ID at all, and the principles involved are just the same principles that you would freely acfcept elsehwer in science applied to biology.

There is absolutely nowhere in any field of science that looks at a system, decides that it is "irreducibly complex" and therefore something more intelligent than us must have been behind it!!!! Irreducible complexity gets me so mad because essentially that is nothing more than throwing up your hands in the air and proclaiming the system can not be reduced any further. :argh: Do you have any idea how many scientific discoveries would have gone undiscovered if that were the attitude of real scientists?


That you have a philisophical presupposition that excludes the possiblity of this speaks more to your own bias than anything else.

I think you've completely missed the logic behind my point. Once you accept that events can occur outside the natural boundaries of the physical universe anything you can imagine can happen! You're free to believe in those things, of course, but no logic or reason can legitimately be applied to anything that happens outside the physical realm. I don't exactly consider this a "philosophical presupposition" so much as a logical premise. But then, that's why we disagree, right? :smile:


Umm ... point of order. Copernicus was attacked by his fellow scientists who went and reved the church up and gor him accused of heresy. The Pope at the tine thought his ideas where quite interesting.

So then are you proclaiming that ID proponents are not scientists? :rofl: I understand that fellow scientists attacked Copernicus, but the motivation is the same. Science points us to conclusions that result in people losing a part of their "specialness" and that rubs people, whether scientist or not, the wrong way and so they resist for very unscientific reasons.


Actually given the scant evidence for evolution I don't think either should be taught in science classes.

Well, not teaching either is an interesting proposition. Unfortunately, there is tons of evidence, but people who don't want to accept evolution don't accept the evidence.


Do you even recognise your own bias ?

I try to. Do you? Do you recognize the fact that you need to have an answer to why you are here? Do you recognize the fact that any scientific explanation would not be acceptable to you because you need a certain amount of mystical mystery surrounding the metaphysical? What would your reaction be if I could snap my fingers and have you wake up tomorrow morning not believing in the least? Your answer to that question tends to point to why you have a personal need to believe in God. I can tell you quite honestly that if the same thing could happen to me in reverse I would wake up doing the exact same things as today.

[jason]

Newtonian mechanics is wrong?
Somewhat. It doesn't work at high velocities. So what, do you deny that it doesn't completely accuratey reflect reality ? It is a really good approximation, but an approximation it still is.

As for your claim that evolution will be overturned when the last of its proponents are dead, this might be true, but issuing fatwas is not normal scientific procedure.
Ummm ... actually I was just asking the atheist to face reality.

Arguing that all scientists accept something doesn't make it correct. And historically an idea has only gone away when the last of its proponents have died from old age. So we should not expect to see evolution off the map for quite some time.

I have not issued anything remotely like a fatwa.

Jason

[jason]

You will now tell us where Dembski's ideas have been referenced in other fields of science.

Perhaps you can name one, just one, I'm not asking for two, one will do, object, not known already to be designed, which Demsbki has identified as designed in other fields of science, using his techniques.
That design is recognised in other fields is more than enough.

That you accept a designer in other fields where the designer happens to be human, but reject the possibility in biology becasue of philisophical presuppositions, just demonstrates the double standards you apply.

Jason

[jason]

It probably makes you feel better to think that atheists have some sort of 'worldview', with evolution as a 'plank', but you're quite mistaken.

Evolution is a fact.
Oh I see. How foolish of me.

Even without the theory of evolution - or any other substitute theory - I'd still find the idea of a magical all-knowing sky man to be completely ridiculous, so you're wrong in assuming that evolution is some kind of crutch to help us ignore your God.

Really. Dawkins comments not with standing I suppose.

Jason

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:06 PM
jason:
Really. Dawkins comments not with standing I suppose.
You're misinterpretting Dawkins.

To me, the idea of God is quite laughable. It'd be laughable without evolution, and it's even more laughable with.

BUT - without knowledge of evolution, an atheist would not be able offer an explaination as to how we came to exist. This poses an intellectual problem, but you don't think to yourself "I don't know 'X', therefore God exists".

What Dawkins said was true, but it was probably an unwise thing to say, because quote-miners can (and do) take it out of context.

Paul

[jason]

Sorry, as someone already posted there were atheists well before there ever has a naturalistic theory for how we got here. All Dawkins is pointing out is that now atheists have the start of an origin theory rather than just shrugging their shoulders. If another scientific theory came along I'd be happy to accept it. That's another difference between religion and science - if evolution is proven wrong by way of a better scientific theory I'm still a scientist. If somehow Christ were proven to have not existed you cease to be a Christian.
If that theory posited a designer you would reject it regardless as it clashes with your worldview. Expcet you would dress it up with words like, "Not real science".

My "belief system" is simply that while something supernatural could exist it can't possibly have any interactions with the physical world because then it would have to exist in physical reality! And if that were the case science would eventually know about it.
you do realise that this doesn't follow at all.

In addition to that little paradox, there is the matter that once you abandon natural law during discussions of the supernatural anything the imagination can dream up is now plausible.
I have not abandoned natrual law anywhere along the line. It is the naturalistic evolutionist who argues for abiogensis and such things.

Therefore, it matters little to the atheist what the answer to "origins" really is since they have long ago decided those questions were unimportant.
And yet your argument suggests otherwise. If origins didn't matter to you, why are you arguing like this ?

So you see, the very definition of atheist means that while atheists would accept a naturalistic explanation of origins, the question itself is merely academic and one of science with very little emotion invested in it.
Yet here you and others argue that "evoltution is a fact" and besides, I notice you use the words "naturalistic explanation", which again suggests that any other explanation would be rejected by you. I'm willing to bet that you would back "directed pan-spermia" before you would back any notion of a God creating us.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that each and every believer deep down thinks that each and every atheist is lying to themselves.
Actually I used to be an atheist and would once have argued exactly as you do. Which is why I do understand why you will defend ideas like evolution to the death, regardless of evidence for or against it.

If it were true, but I'm not so sure that is true. And no doubt a certain amount of bias exists in everything people do - but that's exactly what the scientific method has been designed to cancel out!
So show me the repeatable experiment for the abiogensis of life. Show me the repeatable experiment that shows one species turning into another. And not just one type of plant into a slightly different type of plant, something significant. But of course you cannot, so where exactly does the "scientific method" fit in here. You cannot repeat this experiment in question.

Plenty of scientific theories exist that can not be directly tested or experimented on. I could go into this further, but I've found that people don't want to listen.
Try me.

His books are fabulous explanations of many good, sound, theories and unforunately too many believers think he is the devil incarnate. You want to talk about bias...
Actually having read "The Blind Watchmaker", I was quite disappointed. I was expecting him to make a case with some devestating evidence and all he did page after page was tell fairy stories.

This does not preclude the person from accepting the scientific principles behind evolution - there are plenty of evolutionists who are theists.
Yes but the popularity of an idea doesn't make it true.

There is absolutely nowhere in any field of science that looks at a system, decides that it is "irreducibly complex" and therefore something more intelligent than us must have been behind it!!!! Irreducible complexity gets me so mad because essentially that is nothing more than throwing up your hands in the air and proclaiming the system can not be reduced any further. :argh: Do you have any idea how many scientific discoveries would have gone undiscovered if that were the attitude of real scientists?
Feel free to name the ones you think are the case. I suspect you are simply lampooning the concept.

I think you've completely missed the logic behind my point. Once you accept that events can occur outside the natural boundaries of the physical universe anything you can imagine can happen!
Who said anything about that ? All i'm claiming is that nature has the hall mark of design. It is you that seems to want to put a label to the designer. How do you know the designer is not aliens from another planet ?

but no logic or reason can legitimately be applied to anything that happens outside the physical realm.
It is you not I that is labouring under the misapprehension that such things must take place outside of the physical realm.

Well, not teaching either is an interesting proposition. Unfortunately, there is tons of evidence, but people who don't want to accept evolution don't accept the evidence.
You do realise I can make exactly the same argument for the resurrection of christ as a historic event. This is really a non-argument.

I try to. Do you? Do you recognize the fact that you need to have an answer to why you are here?
Yes I am aware of my own bias. you'll find it is less than yours however. You also require an answer to this question, if you did not you would not be defending evolution the way you do. Clearly dawkins needs an answer to that question.

So why don't you admit it ?

Do you recognize the fact that any scientific explanation would not be acceptable to you because you need a certain amount of mystical mystery surrounding the metaphysical?
Actually I do not. If evolution turned out to be true in a striclty naturalistic sense, I would not lose any sleep at all. Why should I ? Any religious conviction I have is based in history.

There are no scientific explanations I fear at all.

What would your reaction be if I could snap my fingers and have you wake up tomorrow morning not believing in the least? Your answer to that question tends to point to why you have a personal need to believe in God.
It depends what you did. I believe in the existence of God because I am convinced of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unless you have a credible alternative to that you would not convince me not to beleive (hmm ... double negative ?).

I am only a christian because I am convinced it is true. If you can show me that it is not fine. I seek only to believe what is true.

Do you ?

Jason

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:30 PM
jason:
Show me the repeatable experiment that shows one species turning into another. And not just one type of plant into a slightly different type of plant, something significant
One type of plant changing into a slightly different type of plant is evolution, whether you like it or not. These slight changes accumulate, creating different species over time.

Perhaps you'd only be happy if you saw a dog give birth to a cat, or a chimpanzee giving birth to a human. But that wouldn't be evolution, that really would be a miracle.

Paul

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 07:04 PM
jason:


That design is recognised in other fields is more than enough.

That you accept a designer in other fields where the designer happens to be human, but reject the possibility in biology becasue of philisophical presuppositions, just demonstrates the double standards you apply.

Jason


Jason refused to answer my question.

We can see human designers , and the designers of bower nests etc.

There is empirical evidence of designers in other fields.

And none for ID in biology.

Unless, of course, you provide some evidence that rabies, smallpox, HIV, cholera, Bubonic plague were designed.....

Shouldn't all this be in a different forum, moderator?

[flipper]

Jason wrote:


I'm willing to bet that you would back "directed pan-spermia" before you would back any notion of a God creating us.


Interesting you would say that. Doesn't "directed pan-spermia" rather imply an intelligent designer or designers? Or an intelligent agency at least?

Your bias appears to be showing.

[jason]

One type of plant changing into a slightly different type of plant is evolution, whether you like it or not. These slight changes accumulate, creating different species over time.
I have no problem with that. Where I take objection is when this small observation is spun into a materialist fairy tale about origins.

Jason

[jason]

We can see human designers , and the designers of bower nests etc.

There is empirical evidence of designers in other fields.

And none for ID in biology.
So clearly we can see design in things. BTW do you think SETI is a waste of time ? We have no evidence at all that there is any life anywhere but here. Lets see if you are consistent shall we.

You do not deny that we are able to see design in things, why do you deny the possibility of it in biology ? Philisophically problematic ?

Jason

[jason]

Interesting you would say that. Doesn't "directed pan-spermia" rather imply an intelligent designer or designers? Or an intelligent agency at least?

Your bias appears to be showing.
Frank Crick seems to think it is a good idea. I am willing to give some weight to the necessity of such an idea when one of the discovers of DNA supports it.

Jason

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:17 AM
jason:
I have no problem with that. Where I take objection is when this small observation is spun into a materialist fairy tale about origins.
And how does anyone do that?

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:19 AM
jason:
You do not deny that we are able to see design in things, why do you deny the possibility of it in biology ? Philisophically problematic ?
It's not impossible in theory, until you see the evidence that refutes the idea. Every single piece of available evidence, every tiny scrap of information points towards evolution.

This is why people find evolution so compelling - philosophical arguments don't even register.

You might want to take a look at yours however, since they seem to be having a negative effect on your judgement.

Paul

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 10:19 AM
jason:


You do not deny that we are able to see design in things, why do you deny the possibility of it in biology ? Philisophically problematic ?



Who denies the possibility of design in biology? Have you ever heard of people breeding dogs, pigeons etc for specific traits? Of course, design is possible.

Let us see the evidence for your designer. What was designed, when, where and by what?

[cstanyon69]

So clearly we can see design in things. BTW do you think SETI is a waste of time ? We have no evidence at all that there is any life anywhere but here. Lets see if you are consistent shall we.

You do not deny that we are able to see design in things, why do you deny the possibility of it in biology ? Philisophically problematic ?

Jason

First, there is evidence that life *could* exist elsewhere, particularly if you accept we weren't magically created out of nothing but started with the metabolic building blocks of life from which current evolutionary theory holds all life on Earth originated. These same blocks are out is space, therefore at least that criteria is "out there", as are numerous suns and, more recently, planets. But, this is digressive, though SETI, if successful, would once and for all destroy any rational argument for theism. Or is rational theism a self-contradiction; it is about belief, after all, not rationality.

Second, anyone capable of surviving past birth *must* be able to recognise patterns. Without this ability, we cannot learn, cannot develop appropriate responses. In short, we die. Evolution ensured that only individuals with advanced pattern-recognition capability passed on their genes, etc, etc. So, there is no point denying the ability to recognise patterns. Design is a quite a different matter; like function, design is teleological: it presupposes a purpose. In our humano-centric view of the universe, we presume that because we think we have a purpose, everything else must have, too, an argument that becomes quickly circular.

I don't think that the possibility of design in biology had been rejected, but that teaching theological, belief-based dogma in scientific curriculum is fundamentally wrong. As was said, though I paraphrase, science and religion offer two different explanations of the same reality. One is based in objective observation of causal relationships between observable material states; the other is based on a subjective, ideological belief system. Science is a way to develop and test theories that is based in the material world: that it does not depend on subjective, individual experience of the metaphysical, nor does it invoke that realm to describe or explain observations.

Finally, people often ask evolutionists to "prove" evolutionary theory by showing a species evolving. Aside from the time issues, all the evidence is there in the inexorable accumulation of mutations in multicellular organisms, down to the effects of the same accumulation of changes that give rise to novel forms of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Scientists can even use the principles of evolution - mutation followed by selection - to 'evolve' new proteins with different activities to their ancestors...and are in the process of engineering new life-forms to custom specifications. Thus, we can design life, but that doesn't mean we were ourselves designed; there are plenty of bacterial species to which we are merely 'home' or 'food'. Would we be 'god' to a bacteria that we designed, if it acquired consciousness?

[element771]

Hi,

First I would like to suggest that your problem is (as it usually is) with people not with Christianity. I don't know about the copy that you have but my Bible is not a science book nor does it claim to be.




Some believe that science and religion can co-exist peacefully. Some even believe they can be compatible. I am not one of those people. I believe that while religion believes in the whole being more than the sum of its parts, science is about reductionism. While religion has faith at its core, science has skepticism.

I really don't understand this position when you say the following....



Science deals exclusively with the realm of the physical – “materialism” as some have spat from their mouths in disgust. Science has some very good reasons for dealing with the physical, not the least of which is that it can be experimented and tested on. Theology deals with everything beyond the physical. The metaphysical how’s and why’s of the universe are the realm of theology, but the causes and effects of the universe are the sole realm of science.

This statement seems to be exactly how I feel and I AM one of those people that science and religion not only co-exist but are intertwined in the beautiful piece of music that we call reality.

I think you are also looking at it in a superficial manner. I think GK Chesterton hit the nail on the head as he usually does with a illusory superficial yet shockingly deep observation. We can debate evolution until the cows come home but we miss the more important question.....

Why is there a evolutionary process in the first place?

[Cow Poke]

Science deals exclusively with the realm of the physical – “materialism” as some have spat from their mouths in disgust.

Would you agree that evolutionists sometimes take science beyond "fact"?

Would you further agree that often science is used erroneously to support false claims?


Evolution is a scientific theory popularly held by a vast, overwhelming majority of scientists.

Do you know what that percentage is?


No part of the evolutionary theory ever claims there is no God and it certainly doesn’t make any claims that Christianity is wrong.

Interesting point. never thought of that before!


Why then do a group of people, known by some as Fundamentalists, feel that evolution must be attacked and unveiled as some half-baked, poorly constructed hypothesis that has scientists either completely duped or part of the great conspiracy that plots to overrun the world with evil materialistic minions?

Hmmmm... would it be fair to point out the flaws of specific elements of evolutionary theory?


When proponents of ID theory begin to try and claim scientific evidence for their “counter-theory” to evolution I find myself dismayed, shocked, and troubled.

Why? Seriously. The truth should never be afraid of discovery.


No scientific theory will ever end with an intelligent designer for a variety of reasons that no doubt the ID proponents will disagree with whole-heartedly.

I generally refrain from making such sweeping "always" or "never" statements.


What I believe I am witnessing in the United States is nothing less than another Copernicus Revolution with evolution being attacked by those who feel it threatens the foundation of everything they believe in when in fact, the vast majority of evolutionists couldn’t care less about any religious creation stories. I’d be willing to bet that while atheists accept evolution as the factual scientific theory that it is, many, many, many more evolutionists are not atheists at all!

So, are you saying that there is no room for debate?


When I read in the paper or on the Net about another state education board deciding what to do about ID theory and evolution I become frightened for those students. Legitimate competing scientific theories do not attempt to subvert the scientific method by getting their ideas prematurely inserted into school curriculums. They publish, debate, and propose their theories to their peers and equals. A legitimate scientific theory does not need to be taught to young and impressionable minds before the scientific community has approved it. This is nothing short of complete subversion of the education system in the U.S. and it sickens me.

Curricula. (plural) So why does evolution or creation have to be taught at all in public schools? Young people come out of school not knowing how to balance a checkbook or do basic math or write cogent articles or reports. Personally, I'd be thrilled if we spent a wee bit more time on the basics, and leave evolution and creation out of the equation. There is PLENTY in science that is not as hotly disputed.


As a parent if you chose to believe in something and teach it to your children that is your business. It is your right to discuss with your child any lesson they’ve learned in school and tell them it’s wrong or not thoroughly proven or whatever you want to tell them.

Which is why these boards of directors or school boards or parent groups are fighting against evolution. They want the right to teach their own children the values in which they believe, and not have the public school oppose those values.


What you don’t have the right to do is to change the science curriculum in direct defiance of what the worldwide scientific community has not established as a valid competing theory.

The current worldwide scientific community now preaches global warming and imminent disaster. When I was a kid, the worldwide scientific community taught global cooling. (HONEST!) The worldwide scientific community can, and HAS BEEN, wrong. Demonstrably!


And so that is my biggest reason for posting here. There are still a few other ancillary reasons such as what I perceive as the inherent intolerance whenever a person takes the stance in theology discussions that they are right and others are wrong. I am just attempting to shed light on what I feel is the clear distinction between theology and science in the hopes that I can make a difference in the world.

I am absolutely intolerant of intolerance!!!! :smile: Actually, I welcome your presence, and will be happy to dialogue without calling you names or looking down on you because you're "not one of God's children". (purposely facetious in a friendly way) Welcome to Tweb.

[MaxVel]

Zombie thread from 2003

[Cow Poke]

Zombie thread from 2003

Hmmmm... i'll have to keep an eye on those dates... it popped up on my "radar" as a recent post.

[MaxVel]

cstanyon66's post was recent (today) ... the one before that was 6 years ago...

[Cow Poke]

cstanyon66's post was recent (today) ... the one before that was 6 years ago...

Yeah, I see that. Oh well. We woke up a zombie. :shrug:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

*Has only read the OP*

I have one question: What would say to Christians who accept evolution?

[Crow]

OP hasn't been here for years.

[Oolon Colluphid]

There's a problem with directed pan-spermia ("aliens did it") in that it can easily lead to an infinite regress. Who seeded or designed the aliens who seeded or designed us?

Besides does anyone really believe there's any good evidence that "aliens did it"? (Please note the phrasing of my question; I'm not asking does anyone believe it, before people yell "Raelians" and "Scientologists" at me) There's no good evidence that 'aliens did it' I'm sure most theists and atheists alike can agree. Where we differ is on the question of whether there's any evidence that 'God did it'.

Are there any ID advocates who aren't also believers?

As for Dawkins, he did say he couldn't imagine being an atheist before Darwin, and I don't think it's misrepresenting him to say that his refutation of the argument from design is, for him, the decisive counter-argument against God's existence.

[Oolon Colluphid]

You do realise I can make exactly the same argument for the resurrection of christ as a historic event. This is really a non-argument.



I for one would like to read that argument, although I'll probably agree with your 'dangling-modifier' description of it above I suspect!

[Doug Shaver]

but are you willing to admit that you actually need evolution as a plank of you worldview.
No, I am not, because it isn't. Why do some of you theists keep insisting on telling us what we believe and why we believe it? Do you really think we don't know our own minds?


Richard Dawkins rather gave the game away when he said "evolution allows me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".
There really is a difference between a belief that is necessary and a belief that is intellectually fulfilling. One you can do without. The other you can't do without.


but would you agree that you will fight tooth an nail to preserve something that is foundational to the belief system you have adopted ?
What belief system do you think I have adopted?


I understand you can't give an inch because your whole belief system crumbles into nothing without a purely naturalistic account of origins, but do you realise this bias you might have ?
I'll admit my biases in a heartbeat. Will you? Or do you deny having any biases?


I had another atheist on another board gleefully point out to me that most leading scientists are atheists of one stripe or another. But given that is the case doens't this simply suggest some bias ?
It could suggest that there is something about being a scientist that makes one biased against theism. Or it could suggest that belief in God is just very difficult to maintain if one is scientifically educated.


Actually given the scant evidence for evolution I don't think either should be taught in science classes.
The constant repetition, by the advocates of a minority religion, that there is "scant evidence for evolution" does not diminish the amount of evidence for evolution.

[CodewordConduit]

Just deleted my response after I realized how old this thread is...!

[cstanyon69]

Here's another thing to consider: as Lovelock said, as God cannot be disproven, atheists believe there is no God; a responsible, hard-line scientist can only be an agnostic, for lack of data. However, I call myself an atheist in order to convey the depth of my stance, not so much because I know that there can't be one. All the so-called evidence provided by theists in support of a God, over the ages, has been attributed to forces of nature by science as the ability to measure things has improved. So, I think I can safely say that there is no evidence in support of the personal, masculine God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to subscribe to a belief system for which there is no irrefutable proof: that is the nature of belief. It is also the nature of belief that the conditions for it are established well before one has the capacity to make reasoned decisions. If you are familiar with Dawkin's work, you know what memes are; these units of culture inheritance are taught both implicitly and explicitly to children as they grow. Jesus is an intersting case, where the memes of Judaesim were rejected by the man as an adult, because they just didn't gel with all the evidence he could see that people are all the same, essentially - hence his rejection of the 'chosen people' belief of the Jews and advocacy a benevolent, universal God.

Systems of belief - particularly those that validate the self, provide one with the feeling that one belongs to a larger whole, and is working to the greater good - are great for individual psychological health, as are those that teach that one has control of one's circumstances in spite of all the evidence that this is merely a reassuring illusion. Religious-based beliefs are akin to the principle of humanism (go look it up) in that regard, and that regard alone.

The systems for which I have the greatest disdain are those that make a lie of democracy - the current situation in Iran is a clear example of why church and state should be completely and irreversibly separate. Whenever a population is ruled by a class that is not substantially influenced by the wishes of that population, people suffer - at all levels, from the physical to the psychological to the sociological, and in all temporal modes: acutely and chronically.

Whenever a system becomes independent of oversight, corruption will set in: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Church is an institution that is not open to change by its constituents. Ironically, the institution of science is similarly moribund, but at least not quite so heavily ruled or corrupt as the Catholic Church, to name one (come on, have you been listening to the news about the protection of pedophiles by the Church? Do you need a better example of corruption?) Fortunately for science, aging scientists generally retire - rather than have to die to be removed from office - relatively early in life, and there is constant competition for resources that tends to keep them on their toes: they don't have control over their funding, just a bit over their research outcomes. If they fail to produce publications, they fall out of the system - the attrition rate is about 9 in 10: only 1 in 10 people trained as scientists make it to independeent researcher status.

While the institution of science is not perfect, by a long shot, it beats religion, both for material validity and for accountability.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Just deleted my response after I realized how old this thread is...!

Just what's wrong with bein' old, young miss?!

Now where's me needlework? :rtt:

[CodewordConduit]

Nowt wrong with being old :wink:

Needlework?

Lord knows I've tried, but I still can't seem to handle those unexpected little pricks.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I used to attend needlework classes chiefly because the needlework tutor provided excellent catering. However the quality of the food provided began to deteriorate which was a disappointment. During my final lesson I was merely palmed-off with relish.