Intelligent Design?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

xxeverbluexx
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:03 pm UTC

Intelligent Design?

Postby xxeverbluexx » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:12 pm UTC

I'm new around here, so I thought this might be an interesting topic starter. I just saw the movie Expelled, and I'm really questioning evolution. Any opinions?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Expelled is one of the most intellectually dishonest (and straight-up regular dishonest) movies to come out in recent years. Ben Stein doesn't know anything about what evolutionary theory actually says, evolutionary thinking doesn't lead to eugenics or Nazism (selective breeding had been a thing for thousands of years before Darwin came along), and intelligent design isn't a real scientific alternative to anything because it's not a real scientific position in the first place, on account of not actually making any testable claims.

I think that about sums up this board's collective opinions on the matter.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

qetzal
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby qetzal » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:18 am UTC

In case you're honestly new to this, and honestly interested in the evidence that supports evolution, you could check out Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby thoughtfully » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:06 am UTC

I'm not sure you can refute ID with evidence. That's pretty much what "untestable" means.
What you can do is argue that it isn't part of science.

1) all science begins with observations
2) the rest follows from sound reasoning, testing predictions (and choosing tests that are most likely to fail!), and debate with other experts in the field until a consensus is reached.

ID does not resemble this description.

Science is listening to nature to find out what she has to tell us; ID is putting words into her mouth.
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
scarecrovv
It's pronounced 'double u'
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby scarecrovv » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:43 pm UTC

http://www.talkorigins.org/ is another good place to look for reliable information about evolution, and for refutations to arguments for creationism. Unless you tell us specifically what your troubles are, I can't do much more than throw helpful links at you though.

FancyHat
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby FancyHat » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:20 pm UTC

xxeverbluexx wrote:I'm new around here, so I thought this might be an interesting topic starter. I just saw the movie Expelled, and I'm really questioning evolution. Any opinions?

"Questioning" as in asking what testable predictions the theory of evolution makes? That would be good and scientific! :D
I am male, I am 'him'.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

It might be worth pointing out that while Intelligent Design (by virtue of being unscientific) can't be proved right, it also can't be proved wrong. It does not conflict with evolution and could be true even if evolution is true. The idea that they are opposing theories is a fallacy.

qetzal wrote:In case you're honestly new to this, and honestly interested in the evidence that supports evolution, you could check out Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

This is a good link for linking people to, thanks!!
Image

qetzal
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby qetzal » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:48 pm UTC

It may be worth acknowledging that some versions of Intelligent Design could be formulated to be scientific and testable. But the commonly promulgated version espoused by the likes of Expelled, Ben Stein, the Discovery Institute, and their ilk is most certainly NOT scientific.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

qetzal wrote:It may be worth acknowledging that some versions of Intelligent Design could be formulated to be scientific and testable.

Ture, although the scientifically testable bits wouldn't actually be testing whether or not there was a creator. They'd just be tacked on extras like "evolution is wrong" or "the world will end on October 21st 2012" etc...
Image

p1t1o
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby p1t1o » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

What gets it for me is: How come there are so few creationist/Intelligent design types that believe in evolution and the big bang but that a creator designed and started it all. Some new theory comes out with some new physics that no one has heard of, describing a new beginning of the universe? God did it!

I suppose it would take the fun out of being in a minority religion/hate group.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby yurell » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

Here is a playlist that systematically destroys that horrible piece of propaganda. It's a 16-part YouTube video, with each part 9-10 minutes long.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

p1t1o wrote:What gets it for me is: How come there are so few creationist/Intelligent design types that believe in evolution and the big bang but that a creator designed and started it all. Some new theory comes out with some new physics that no one has heard of, describing a new beginning of the universe? God did it!

I suppose it would take the fun out of being in a minority religion/hate group.


Most religious types would fit that description if you removed the "Intelligent Design" bit.
The reason so few people exist that match your description is because they would be a walking oxymoron.
Image

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

You may also be interested in Kitzmiller vs Dover. It was a court case that tested whether ID should be taught in schools, and found, quite decisively, that ID is purely a religious claim and has no basis in science (and therefore teaching it is unconstitutional). Quite a remarkable decision, especially for a Republican judge.

It puts a lot of the characters from the ID movement, such as Michael Behe, on the spot to defend claims regarding ID and (in his case) irreducible complexity. Behe was forced to admit under cross-examination that in order to include ID as a scientific theory, the definition of science would have to be so broad to include astrology.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:51 pm UTC

For what it's worth, as a Creationist, I think Intelligent Design is a rather weak attempt at trying to reconcile religion with science. Yes, there are a lot of arguments for evolution. Okay, there may be some arguments against it, and maybe they are all refutable. I don't believe what I believe because I believe the evidence backs it up; I believe what I believe in spite of there being evidence against it. (That's what's called faith.) And there are probably more people out there that believe like I do than believe ID.

Now, please don't attack me because I believe something different from you. I think I have that right. But at least I'm not calling what I believe "science."
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

p1t1o
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby p1t1o » Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:59 pm UTC

Surely as a creationist, by definition you must believe in ID?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:00 pm UTC

Yes, most creationists are honest about it. ID is little more (or at least began as little more) than an attempt to get creationism into schools without being honest about it, because the First Amendment prevents overtly religious beliefs from being taught at public schools.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:02 pm UTC

p1t1o wrote:Surely as a creationist, by definition you must believe in ID?


Maybe I am misunderstanding... I thought intelligent design was concepts like "directed evolution" where there's still macroevolution, a big bang theory, etc. but they are controlled by God?
Last edited by mathmannix on Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:05 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

Yeah, when we talk about Intelligent Design (capitalized), we typically mean the whole set of beliefs IDers have lumped together in an effort to make their claims appear more in line with real science.

p1t1o's point was that, as a creationist, you must believe in intelligent design (uncapitalized), in the sense that you believe the universe was designed (and then created) by some kind of intelligence (presumably God's).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, when we talk about Intelligent Design (capitalized), we typically mean the whole set of beliefs IDers have lumped together in an effort to make their claims appear more in line with real science.

p1t1o's point was that, as a creationist, you must believe in intelligent design (uncapitalized), in the sense that you believe the universe was designed (and then created) by some kind of intelligence (presumably God's).


Okay... obviously if I believe in an omniscient God who created everything, then I believe in an intelligent Designer.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:07 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
p1t1o wrote:Surely as a creationist, by definition you must believe in ID?


Maybe I am misunderstanding... I thought intelligent design was concepts like "directed evolution" where there's still macroevolution, a big bang theory, etc. but they are controlled by God?


Intelligent Design was the disguise given to Creationism by the Discovery Institute and co in an attempt to subvert US law and get that shit in science classrooms.
It was exposed and ripped to pieces in 2005 in Kitzmiller vs The Dover School District (depressing fact: a Sociology Professor from my University spoke for the defense!).

Of course, they still try at times.
Image

p1t1o
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby p1t1o » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, most creationists are honest about it. ID is little more (or at least began as little more) than an attempt to get creationism into schools without being honest about it, because the First Amendment prevents overtly religious beliefs from being taught at public schools.


Ah, Intelligent Design =/= intelligent design, gotcha.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:16 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:Intelligent Design was the disguise given to Creationism by the Discovery Institute and co in an attempt to subvert US law and get that in science classrooms.
It was exposed and ripped to pieces in 2005 in Kitzmiller vs The Dover School District (depressing fact: a Sociology Professor from my University spoke for the defense!).

Of course, they still try at times.


When I have kids, I will probably accept that the schools will teach evolution, but I will let my kids know what I believe and why I believe it, and let them decide for themselves. That seems the most honest and straightforward way to go about things.

However... would it really be wrong to say something in the beginning of the science book, something along the lines of "not everyone believes this; in fact, the majority of Westerners believed something else 150 years ago; here are some other alternative beliefs" ? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with other religions' beliefs being included too... there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:21 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:However... would it really be wrong to say something in the beginning of the science book, something along the lines of "not everyone believes this; in fact, the majority of Westerners believed something else 150 years ago; here are some other alternative beliefs" ?
Yes, it would be wrong, because the same could be said of every scientific belief we have today, so singling out religious beliefs about evolution, instead of just including the entire history of pre-scientific thought (which would be more appropriate for a different class anyway, such as The History of Pre-Scientific Thought), means it's still an effort to get the creationist foot in the door.

Creationism (and ID) isn't a science, so why even mention it in a science book?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:However... would it really be wrong to say something in the beginning of the science book, something along the lines of "not everyone believes this; in fact, the majority of Westerners believed something else 150 years ago; here are some other alternative beliefs" ? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with other religions' beliefs being included too... there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?


Yes it would be wrong.
The belief of millions is irrelevant in a science book.
Empirical evidence, the exploration of testable hypotheses and the development of critical thinking are the core of science and are what should be taught in science classrooms.
Your faith, and the faith of billions the world over, fail this.

Edit: Ninja'd
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

Which isn't to say those religious beliefs have no place in a school. If you are in a comparative religion class, or a philosophy class, or a history class, the other things people believe or believed might be relevant.

If you're in a science class, it might be worthwhile to at least occasionally mention what the majority believed before science came along, but what people still continue to believe despite science isn't relevant. And when you do mention older beliefs in a science class, it's usually so that you can then explain how scientific inquiry showed something else to be true, so I doubt creationists would be particularly happy with this quite reasonable treatment of their beliefs in a science course.

"People used to believe heavy objects fell faster, and then Galileo came along and showed that they were wrong."

"People used to believe everything moved around the Earth, and then Copernicus came along and showed that they were wrong."

"People used to believe all living things have always existed in their present form, and then Darwin came along and demonstrated that they were wrong."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Tass » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:When I have kids, I will probably accept that the schools will teach evolution, but I will let my kids know what I believe and why I believe it, and let them decide for themselves. That seems the most honest and straightforward way to go about things.


Agreed.

You seem honest and intelligent. I like that.

But please satisfy my curiosity, why do you believe what you believe?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:50 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Xenomortis wrote:Intelligent Design was the disguise given to Creationism by the Discovery Institute and co in an attempt to subvert US law and get that in science classrooms.
It was exposed and ripped to pieces in 2005 in Kitzmiller vs The Dover School District (depressing fact: a Sociology Professor from my University spoke for the defense!).

Of course, they still try at times.


When I have kids, I will probably accept that the schools will teach evolution, but I will let my kids know what I believe and why I believe it, and let them decide for themselves. That seems the most honest and straightforward way to go about things.

However... would it really be wrong to say something in the beginning of the science book, something along the lines of "not everyone believes this; in fact, the majority of Westerners believed something else 150 years ago; here are some other alternative beliefs" ? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with other religions' beliefs being included too... there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?


I think part of the problem is that, to a scientist, saying that you can believe in evolution is itself, not really a scientifically accurate statement. Science doesn't deal in beliefs. It deals in data, facts, evidence, and models (theories) to explain those data, facts, and evidence. The Theory of Evolution is the model that scientists use to explain a variety of things about living organisms, including their origins and history, their similarities and differences, and whatnot, and it is grounded in a wide variety of data that support it. Evolution is not a belief system, and it is incorrect to describe it as such: It is a scientific theory.

p1t1o
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby p1t1o » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think part of the problem is that, to a scientist, saying that you can believe in evolution is itself, not really a scientifically accurate statement. Science doesn't deal in beliefs. It deals in data, facts, evidence, and models (theories) to explain those data, facts, and evidence. The Theory of Evolution is the model that scientists use to explain a variety of things about living organisms, including their origins and history, their similarities and differences, and whatnot, and it is grounded in a wide variety of data that support it. Evolution is not a belief system, and it is incorrect to describe it as such: It is a scientific theory.



I think if you are dealing in semantics, "belief" is still appropriate for a scientist. How can you think something is true if you don't believe it?

What you mean is: Science is not a matter of faith.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby yurell » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:27 pm UTC

Problem is that 'belief' has tow very different meanings, and these two are often conflated by (dishonest) people who wish to draw parallels between science and religion.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:46 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
mathmannix wrote:When I have kids, I will probably accept that the schools will teach evolution, but I will let my kids know what I believe and why I believe it, and let them decide for themselves. That seems the most honest and straightforward way to go about things.


Agreed.

You seem honest and intelligent. I like that.

But please satisfy my curiosity, why do you believe what you believe?


Thank you for asking. My reply I will put in a spoiler, but anyone is free to click on it.

Spoiler:
Ultimately it begins with my faith in Jesus as God. I *know* He has changed my life. I *feel* His presence. I *know* He brought me and my wife together, through contrived circumstances, because He cares for us. I *see* that He has changed many others' lives. I see how, though many evils have been done in the name of God throughout history, that the influence of Christianity is an overwhelmingly positive one, having effected our society through providing the basis of our law, encouraging literature and education, and spreading the knowledge of western medicine, among other things. (Am I biased? Yes, but I still know and see these things.)

From there it is extrapolation: I believe in the Bible, that it is not just a collection of people written over a thousand or more years, but that it is basically . Jesus quotes the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. I believe that miraculous stories found therein, such as those about Daniel and Jonah (which are both quoted specifically by Jesus in the New Testament) really happened. It doesn't seem to me that it is any different to believe that the parts of Genesis that hardly anyone believes anymore are literally true. The accounts of creation, the flood, the Tower of Babel, etc., aren't any different, once you accept that God can take an active role in human history.

So, I personally believe that the world is somewhere around 6 to 7 thousand years old, because that's what the Bible indicates - you can add up the numbers in the genealogies. I choose to interpret it literally, because for me, it is all or nothing. Either the Bible is a true account of history, or it is filled with myths, and I don't think it can be construed as both. However, I know many Christians who do not believe in this, who believe in a 4.5-billion-year-old earth. And I try not to make a big deal of it, like I did when I was younger. Why? Because I *know* that it really doesn't matter. The important things to believe are in the Nicene Creed. Some exerpts:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth... "
"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ..." "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father..." "by the Holy Spirit was incarante of the Virgin Mary..." "For our sake he was crucified... and rose again... ascended into heaven... will come again in glory... and his kingdom will have no end."

It says nothing about a global flood, or about the earth being less than a million years old. So those things don't matter spiritually.
(I like to equate it to somebody who believes that Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President... or since you're from Copenhagen, I suppose somebody that believes that Christian IX was the first King of Denmark, and all that stuff about Gorm the Old, and Sweyn Forkbeard, and the Kalmar Union are just myths... said person would be wrong, but it wouldn't make them go to Hell.)

I hope this helps you somehow.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:24 am UTC

Firstly, I just want to say thanks for posting that mathmanix! I admire your attitude towards belief in general; especially that people are free to believe whatever they like, regardless of how true it is. (Apologies if this sounds facetious. It is meant genuinely.)

On one particular point:
I wonder that you choose to believe the Earth (and heaven?) is 6-7 thousand years old. According to genesis, they were created before day and night, and there is no apparent indication of the amount of time between the 'beginning' and the creation of the first day. Of course you are welcome to believe that it all happened in a short amount of time, but to suggest that the bible implies that is IMO disingenuous. In fact, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so I'm not even sure you can reliably claim that the length of the first 3 days is discernible.
Image

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Tass » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:37 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:Thank you for asking. My reply I will put in a spoiler, but anyone is free to click on it.

Spoiler:
Ultimately it begins with my faith in Jesus as God. I *know* He has changed my life. I *feel* His presence. I *know* He brought me and my wife together, through contrived circumstances, because He cares for us. I *see* that He has changed many others' lives. I see how, though many evils have been done in the name of God throughout history, that the influence of Christianity is an overwhelmingly positive one, having effected our society through providing the basis of our law, encouraging literature and education, and spreading the knowledge of western medicine, among other things. (Am I biased? Yes, but I still know and see these things.)

From there it is extrapolation: I believe in the Bible, that it is not just a collection of people written over a thousand or more years, but that it is basically . Jesus quotes the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. I believe that miraculous stories found therein, such as those about Daniel and Jonah (which are both quoted specifically by Jesus in the New Testament) really happened. It doesn't seem to me that it is any different to believe that the parts of Genesis that hardly anyone believes anymore are literally true. The accounts of creation, the flood, the Tower of Babel, etc., aren't any different, once you accept that God can take an active role in human history.

So, I personally believe that the world is somewhere around 6 to 7 thousand years old, because that's what the Bible indicates - you can add up the numbers in the genealogies. I choose to interpret it literally, because for me, it is all or nothing. Either the Bible is a true account of history, or it is filled with myths, and I don't think it can be construed as both. However, I know many Christians who do not believe in this, who believe in a 4.5-billion-year-old earth. And I try not to make a big deal of it, like I did when I was younger. Why? Because I *know* that it really doesn't matter. The important things to believe are in the Nicene Creed. Some exerpts:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth... "
"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ..." "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father..." "by the Holy Spirit was incarante of the Virgin Mary..." "For our sake he was crucified... and rose again... ascended into heaven... will come again in glory... and his kingdom will have no end."

It says nothing about a global flood, or about the earth being less than a million years old. So those things don't matter spiritually.
(I like to equate it to somebody who believes that Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President... or since you're from Copenhagen, I suppose somebody that believes that Christian IX was the first King of Denmark, and all that stuff about Gorm the Old, and Sweyn Forkbeard, and the Kalmar Union are just myths... said person would be wrong, but it wouldn't make them go to Hell.)

I hope this helps you somehow.


Thanks for your reply. I have a few follow-up questions (sorry if there is quite a lot of question marks in the following, I am really trying to understand):

Spoiler:
Do you ever doubt? You must know that there are hundreds of confident religions with completely different beliefs. There are millions of people as confident as you, who *know* that their religious belief is true. You must have heard of at least some of the psychological studies that shows how easily our brain and senses can fool us, and make us believe what we want to believe or confirm what we already believe. (If not I shall link you some truly shocking results). In your view those other religions must be wrong (Right? No relativism of truth?), why do you think they are so confident in their wrong belief? If you had been brought up in a Hindu country, would you have been a confident hindu? Do you believe that you were just lucky to be born in a country where you were taught the right religion? But so do the others. If they can be so wrong, couldn't you?

Of course I can't disprove that the universe were created 6000 years ago - I can't disprove that it was created last Thursday, if it were created to look old by some omnipotent creator. What I would like to ask, since you believe god did just that, is why? Why do you think god created the world to make us think it was 4.6 billions years old in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old? Why did he create the ground with geological strata, and fossils detailing a long evolutionary history? Why did he create canyons of hard rock to look exactly like they would if water had been wearing the rock slowly over millions of years? Why did he put non coding DNA in living organisms, almost identical but yet with small differences across the species, in such a way that it fits perfectly with what you would expect from random changes accumulating through the eons? Why are they not either identical or completely different? Why did he make microscopic radiation tracks inside rocks that looks exactly like they were made by cosmic rays across a long timespan? Why did he put lead atoms in a rock with a crystal structure containing uranium, when lead would never precipitate in that structure? Leading us to believe that the lead got there by decay of uranium, which would have taken millions of years. Why did he make the pattern of magnetic reversal in the ocean floor, making it look exactly like the ocean has slowly spread from the central rift, and reversals of the earths field has gotten locked in the rock? I can only conclude that if an omnipotent being created the world last Thursday (or 6000 years ago or whenever) that he would have WANTED me to believe that the world was billions of years old.

Please note, I am really not trying to offend. I know many people would be offended and refuse to consider these questions, but you seem intelligent and you must at least have considered some of them before. I am genuinely interested to hear what answers you have found which allows you to continue to believe what you do.


Two new posts since I started writing. Posting it anyway.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:13 am UTC

It's good the discussion has been mostly in spoiler tags, because it's not really on topic. Now let's stop discussing mathmannix's religious beliefs in this thread entirely.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby mathmannix » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:08 pm UTC

Fair enough! Anyone can PM me if they have any questions specifically for me. I won't bring it up again (unless there is another thread devoted specifically to it.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:Fair enough! Anyone can PM me if they have any questions specifically for me. I won't bring it up again (unless there is another thread devoted specifically to it.)


There's a religion thread in SB if you're feeling brave....

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby webgiant » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:09 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Xenomortis wrote:Intelligent Design was the disguise given to Creationism by the Discovery Institute and co in an attempt to subvert US law and get that in science classrooms.
It was exposed and ripped to pieces in 2005 in Kitzmiller vs The Dover School District (depressing fact: a Sociology Professor from my University spoke for the defense!).

Of course, they still try at times.


When I have kids, I will probably accept that the schools will teach evolution, but I will let my kids know what I believe and why I believe it, and let them decide for themselves. That seems the most honest and straightforward way to go about things.

However... would it really be wrong to say something in the beginning of the science book, something along the lines of "not everyone believes this; in fact, the majority of Westerners believed something else 150 years ago; here are some other alternative beliefs" ? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with other religions' beliefs being included too... there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?

The teapot orbiting Pluto just takes up space needed for other words and isn't worthy of being mentioned in a Science textbook.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby Shivahn » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:40 pm UTC

Don't be silly; Russel's Teapot is in between Earth and Mars, orbiting the Sun.

You must be thinking of some made-up, ridiculous teapot.

User avatar
tomandlu
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:22 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby tomandlu » Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:59 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?


This might be worth a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution

And the Dashāvatāras and evolution section in particular...

Oh, and this is worth a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Support_for_evolution_by_religious_bodies (note that, afaict, this is US only)

Can't stop posting links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

From my (atheistic/agnostic/whatever) viewpoint, opposition to evolution, in the face of all the evidence, is at best an act of ignorance, and at worst cowardice and/or a sign of a failure of intellect. Reconciling creation myths, including the Christian one, with evolution isn't particularly hard and in many ways beneficial (the tree of knowledge as a metaphor for the shift from pre-man, who is no more morally responsible for his actions than a wolf, to man, who is responsible, and so on), so why all the fuss? If the bible set the speed of light as infinite, would christians be fighting about that? Because, to an outsider, it's not very different...
How can I think my way out of the problem when the problem is the way I think?

p1t1o
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby p1t1o » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm UTC

tomandlu wrote:
mathmannix wrote:there's a billion Hindus(very roughly estimating) who have different beliefs from either evolution or Judaeo-Christian creation, right?


This might be worth a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution


Hindus seem to be very smart people, 5 seconds in and you can see that in a major collection of ancient texts (lets say analogous to a bible) the question of creation is met with:

"Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows?"

An admission of something being unknown. Far, far more than any western religion has managed so far.

User avatar
tomandlu
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:22 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design?

Postby tomandlu » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:32 am UTC

p1t1o wrote:Hindus seem to be very smart people, 5 seconds in and you can see that in a major collection of ancient texts (lets say analogous to a bible) the question of creation is met with:

"Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows?"

An admission of something being unknown. Far, far more than any western religion has managed so far.


Up to a point - the caste system is pretty screwed up. But, yes, mathmannix is slightly hoisted on his own petard when it comes to hindus and creationism. Here is a major religion that doesn't seem to have a real problem with evolution. Let's be honest - the only world religions that have a problem are islam and fundamental christianity. Any fans of American Flagg? In some ways, Chaykin's conflation of FC and islam in a common cause is looking very prescient.

BTW, mathmannix, I sincerely apologise if it looks like I'm having a go at you, but you have to understand that the fall-out from the creationists is a poisoning of the well for more reasoned discourse on the relationship between faith and knowledge, and that angers me. It ought to anger Christians who are more open to evidence and are happy to view Genesis as metaphor (and a damn fine one) - they are placed in an invidious position as well.

(edit to add) and double-apologies if I've misunderstood your position - that would be the poisoning of the well I mentioned.
How can I think my way out of the problem when the problem is the way I think?


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests