Evolution and the Existence of God

[Gadawg73]

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Science is testing with the scientific method; a system where you attempt at alltimes with every test you conduct to prove your theory wrong.
Religion is a belief system where your faith is believed to always be correct.
Do you practice your religion like science? At all times testing your faith that is always false?
That is what science always does. Religion never does that. Science never assumes anything. Science tests and provides proof. Religion is a belief system. In religion you have many different scenarios. Who is right, the Jew, Christian, Hindu or Muslim?

Perhaps though your post suggests you really don't know too much about what you're talking about here.

What difference does it make whether the Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religious group is right in this context? Do you have to reconcile differences of scientific opinion of which there are many before you can accept science as a reasoned discipline?

My whole point from the beginning of this discussion is that ID is not science in the sense that we usually define science.

And ID is not religion in the sense that we usually define religion at least so far as iit being necessary to include spiritual beings or dieties.

The honest and true scientists closes his mind to no possibilities and fully accepts that what he now knows may be perceived differently when new information or evidence is presented. The only way scientists can get ever closer to the truth is with open minds receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

And the same is true of ID which also presumes that there is far more to know than what is known and the only way to get closer to the truth is by an open mind receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

Therefore, for all we know there will be a merging of science and ID sometime in the future, but it is not now merged. But no scientist worth his credentials as a scientist would dismiss ID as an impossibility any more than any ID-er of reasoned intelligence would dismiss science out of hand just because it doesn't fit with some religious doctrine.

Perhaps none of us knows what they are talking about here, you included.
With an open mind, how does a scientist test a belief? Your assumption is prefaced with your opinion that all science is closed minded. However, you provide no supporting facts with that baseless conclusion.
Scientists test theories, not beliefs. ID is a belief only.
You can never disprove my religous beliefs. Ever. No science can ever disprove my religous beliefs. No science can ever prove my religous beliefs either.
Science proves and disproves theories on the hour. That is the difference.

 

[antagon]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

This needs to be broken down a little:
1 - religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion.

That is the general sentiment that many have but I would say that it is INCORRECT! Before jumping here lets examine that stance. I see those ethical boundaries to be created by MORALS not just the religion behind them. To be sure, religion effects your morals but you do not need that religion to be present to have morals. Many times the morals of the religious confuse atheists and that leads to the targeting of religion.

For instance, I would be against any research that would require you to perform a partial birth abortion on a fully viable 9 month fetus and yet I am an atheist. I would be against it for personal moral reasons. In short, I am not against restricting science within moral boundaries but I do not believe that it should be restricted based on strictly religious reasons (ex: God commands in XXX religion that no research be done on geology because he said so)

2 - Religious faith based teaching in schools.
Simple and absolute NO on all accounts. Religions should be taught in a historical and cultural impact type setting but nothing more than a simple overview of the tenants of each religion should be covered and no religious concepts such as ID should be introduced as a curriculum. That religious course should cover all the major religions as well.

3 - Genetics and playing God

Once again, moral choices and boundaries are set with morality and do not necessitate religion though religion structures your personal morality. In this there are many boundaries we should not cross but we are not at that point yet where we even need to delve into that. I do not want to see the world reduced to the one in A Brave New World but the tech for that does not exist and is not currently being developed so it is rather somewhat moot.

religion often represents a sort of moral conservatism. together with the purported consensus of the congregation of faithful, putting organized morality like that proposed by religious groups at par with individual moral conviction.

while you've made an argument that we aren't at the precipice of a brave new world, religious groups bring this battle to today's doorstep by claiming that the implications of today's technology threaten moral trespass.

to understand my impression of religion as a conservative force with respect to technology, one could examine the quakers or amish. i respect their posture that their lifestyle is their choice, but moral conservatism empowered by religions has endeavored to make these choices on the behalf of all americans through political activism.

creationism turned ID is one such attempt at directing these personal moral convictions on unsuspecting society. the issue with stem-cell research is never one of killing babies for science, but rather that it is argued that industrial benefits to abortion are seen to undermine abortion opposition by way of increasing demand for aborted fetus.

stem cell research may also strike the nerve of playing God. certainly this concept is at play in today's moral landscape. i could appreciate that an atheist or impartial scientist may see the course of science as no threat and a far cry from a brave new world, but the implications of genetic engineering, cloning, and synthetic biology, for starters, has ruffled the feathers of those whose moral convictions drive them to regulate the opportunity to play god out of existence.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Federal Dover case in Pennsylvania fully disputed the ID crowd. They showed up with fraudulent evidence, lied in depositions and open court and were verbally toungue lashed by the Federal Judge.
A conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge.
That case proved ID is repackaged creationism. ID is not science and that case proved it.
ID is a belief. Take a good look at that case. It will shock you.

Dover was really the last nail in the coffin for the ID movement. Even the biggest proponent of the movement, Phillip Johnston (a born again attorney who wrote a book called "Darwin On Trial"), admitted it. In fact, he didn't want to go to trial. He knew they would get stomped. I think the Discovery Institute changed their mission statement after that.

At any rate, "intelligent design" is an old concept. The modern version of it, which is more a political movement than science, has been marred by deception, lies, and subterfuge.

 

[geauxtohell]

thanks for the responses, everyone. this is turning out to be a jive debate.

what when the contentions of ID dont fit with findings in science?

Not possible. ID just stipulates there is an intelligent designer that drives the force. The problem that many an IDer comes up against is the seemingly laughable notion that God cannot use the path of evolution to create - he MUST use magical supernatural methods. I have to ask why is God limited to the path that WE chose instead of any path open to himself?

i'm hoping for some clarification on ID. i think it must have changed since the court examined it or that it may be very freeform/'moving target' theory to start with. originally, it was a rehash of creationism which contended that supernatural determination, rather than natural selection/epigenesis was the mechanism by which adaptations were tested and determined. doesn't that constitute an overlap of logic basic to evolution by one basic to ID?

A quick history of it is this: the modern ID movement came about after the SCOTUS decision in the early 90s ruled that teaching creationism was an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause. Almost immediately (so fast that creationist biology textbooks that were in print at the time) the pro-creationist group adopted ID which was essentially the same thing but without the Adam and Eve story and direct mention of who the creator was. The Discovery Institute popped up at that time as well with their wedge document that explicitly stated it was their goal to reintroduce Christianity and creationism into secular society and that they planned to start at ID.

So they muddled around as a political action committee for about a decade, without doing any bench science to prove ID (though they claimed they were) and kept running into the same hurdles from the scientific and educational establishment.

Dover was their high water mark. The consequential trial and the complete smackdown they got was about the end of it.

Ken Miller's speech that I linked does a pretty good job telling the story. He was an expert witness for the plaintiffs. The NOVA series on Dover also does a good job.

The bottom line is this: Darwin didn't come up with the concept of evolution. It's an old idea. Neither did these guys come up with the concept of "intelligent design". However, the modern proponents of teaching Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to evolution have a long history of dishonesty.

They have to be dishonest. The facts are not on their side.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw&feature=related]YouTube - The Words of God[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Science is testing with the scientific method; a system where you attempt at alltimes with every test you conduct to prove your theory wrong.
Religion is a belief system where your faith is believed to always be correct.
Do you practice your religion like science? At all times testing your faith that is always false?
That is what science always does. Religion never does that. Science never assumes anything. Science tests and provides proof. Religion is a belief system. In religion you have many different scenarios. Who is right, the Jew, Christian, Hindu or Muslim?

Perhaps though your post suggests you really don't know too much about what you're talking about here.

What difference does it make whether the Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religious group is right in this context? Do you have to reconcile differences of scientific opinion of which there are many before you can accept science as a reasoned discipline?

My whole point from the beginning of this discussion is that ID is not science in the sense that we usually define science.

And ID is not religion in the sense that we usually define religion at least so far as iit being necessary to include spiritual beings or dieties.

The honest and true scientists closes his mind to no possibilities and fully accepts that what he now knows may be perceived differently when new information or evidence is presented. The only way scientists can get ever closer to the truth is with open minds receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

And the same is true of ID which also presumes that there is far more to know than what is known and the only way to get closer to the truth is by an open mind receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

Therefore, for all we know there will be a merging of science and ID sometime in the future, but it is not now merged. But no scientist worth his credentials as a scientist would dismiss ID as an impossibility any more than any ID-er of reasoned intelligence would dismiss science out of hand just because it doesn't fit with some religious doctrine.

Perhaps none of us knows what they are talking about here, you included.
With an open mind, how does a scientist test a belief? Your assumption is prefaced with your opinion that all science is closed minded. However, you provide no supporting facts with that baseless conclusion.
Scientists test theories, not beliefs. ID is a belief only.
You can never disprove my religous beliefs. Ever. No science can ever disprove my religous beliefs. No science can ever prove my religous beliefs either.
Science proves and disproves theories on the hour. That is the difference.

I may not know what I'm talking about, but I at least do my best not to misrepresent what others post, and if I err in that regard, I fess up and acknowledge the error.

It is true that scientists don't test beliefs and I didn't even hint at such a thing. Scientists test theories which are ever evolving as a result of the testing, analysis, and interpretation of results. Your observation that I hold an "....opinion that all science is closed minded" is almost mind boggling in the face of what I actually posted. Do you generally have that much problem with reading comprehension?

I have not and would not attempt to disprove your religious beliefs, more especially since I don't have a clue what they are. I cannot imagine why you would include that in this discussion unless you again simply manufactured what you think the discussion is about.

I think science does not presume to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything but rather it seeks to verify and/or falsify. There is a subtle difference between these two things. Certainty is a very big word to a legitimate scientist and and one infrequently used.

ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition. Again, had you bothered to read what I posted, or perhaps if you were capable of understanding what you read, you would have seen that ID is not necessarily a concept within a religious belief.

 

[JoLouis]

"ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition."

observation: So someone's observed god?
reasoned consideration: it's reasonable to say god exists when you haven't seen it?
rational supposition: rational would necessitate something concrete.

 

[FA_Q2]

YouTube - The Words of God

All right, mostly I think you are a kook old rocks but I have to say that was a good link with a very well articulated song on the topic.

 

[FA_Q2]

thanks for the responses, everyone. this is turning out to be a jive debate.

what when the contentions of ID dont fit with findings in science?

Not possible. ID just stipulates there is an intelligent designer that drives the force. The problem that many an IDer comes up against is the seemingly laughable notion that God cannot use the path of evolution to create - he MUST use magical supernatural methods. I have to ask why is God limited to the path that WE chose instead of any path open to himself?

i'm hoping for some clarification on ID. i think it must have changed since the court examined it or that it may be very freeform/'moving target' theory to start with. originally, it was a rehash of creationism which contended that supernatural determination, rather than natural selection/epigenesis was the mechanism by which adaptations were tested and determined. doesn't that constitute an overlap of logic basic to evolution by one basic to ID?

I honestly do not belive that it has really changed at all. There are some that claim that it goes outside of religious context but the truth of it is that no one actally perscribes to ID outside of people that base it within a God belief system. There was an ET ID theory that a very select few belived in that had to deal with a 12th planet on some insane 10000 year orbital path but I wont go into the details of the insane here. I am not sure what you are getting at with the last sentence but correct me if I am wrong. Are you asking if they are somewhat exclusive in their bases?

Honestly, there is nothing in evolution that states the process of natural selection is random, that is simply the point at which science has no better answer. In fact, due to the prevalence of life and its amazing ability to adapt, I am somewhat apt to believe that it is NOT random but that there is a series of natural laws that assist in this process. An IDer can, of course, see God as directing the gradual evolution of creatures. There is no reason that ID cannot take this form. The movement has attached itself to literal interpretations of the bible and pasted that onto ID but there is no reason that ID could not be applied to an evolutionary model.

 

[FA_Q2]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

This needs to be broken down a little:
1 - religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion.

That is the general sentiment that many have but I would say that it is INCORRECT! Before jumping here lets examine that stance. I see those ethical boundaries to be created by MORALS not just the religion behind them. To be sure, religion effects your morals but you do not need that religion to be present to have morals. Many times the morals of the religious confuse atheists and that leads to the targeting of religion.

For instance, I would be against any research that would require you to perform a partial birth abortion on a fully viable 9 month fetus and yet I am an atheist. I would be against it for personal moral reasons. In short, I am not against restricting science within moral boundaries but I do not believe that it should be restricted based on strictly religious reasons (ex: God commands in XXX religion that no research be done on geology because he said so)

2 - Religious faith based teaching in schools.
Simple and absolute NO on all accounts. Religions should be taught in a historical and cultural impact type setting but nothing more than a simple overview of the tenants of each religion should be covered and no religious concepts such as ID should be introduced as a curriculum. That religious course should cover all the major religions as well.

3 - Genetics and playing God

Once again, moral choices and boundaries are set with morality and do not necessitate religion though religion structures your personal morality. In this there are many boundaries we should not cross but we are not at that point yet where we even need to delve into that. I do not want to see the world reduced to the one in A Brave New World but the tech for that does not exist and is not currently being developed so it is rather somewhat moot.

religion often represents a sort of moral conservatism. together with the purported consensus of the congregation of faithful, putting organized morality like that proposed by religious groups at par with individual moral conviction.

while you've made an argument that we aren't at the precipice of a brave new world, religious groups bring this battle to today's doorstep by claiming that the implications of today's technology threaten moral trespass.

to understand my impression of religion as a conservative force with respect to technology, one could examine the quakers or amish. i respect their posture that their lifestyle is their choice, but moral conservatism empowered by religions has endeavored to make these choices on the behalf of all americans through political activism.

creationism turned ID is one such attempt at directing these personal moral convictions on unsuspecting society. the issue with stem-cell research is never one of killing babies for science, but rather that it is argued that industrial benefits to abortion are seen to undermine abortion opposition by way of increasing demand for aborted fetus.

stem cell research may also strike the nerve of playing God. certainly this concept is at play in today's moral landscape. i could appreciate that an atheist or impartial scientist may see the course of science as no threat and a far cry from a brave new world, but the implications of genetic engineering, cloning, and synthetic biology, for starters, has ruffled the feathers of those whose moral convictions drive them to regulate the opportunity to play god out of existence.

I understand your point but I don't think that I articulated mine well enough. My basic premise is that science SHOULD be subject to our morality and SHOULD NOT be subject to various religions but that it is not possible separate personal morality form various religions so it WILL affect the direction of science because there is nothing we can do about it. There are the obvious as you point out the Quakers and Amish. Even the IDers that want ID taught in school are in that category as it is squarely placed in religious territory without any basis in science. Those extremes should certainly not be the basis for science but we cannot completely remove all religion from science without divorcing science from morality and that would be a terrible thing. That is what Hitler did and there were many great discoveries that came with it. It was just at a price that was far to grate.

I am not entirely pleased about the restrictions placed on current research, particularly stem cells but there must be restrictions and I believe that the best way to combat these thing is through the comprehensive teaching of the public what these techs are. There are still people that believe that cloning produces an exact copy of yourself at the time and moment you are cloned so that you could have multiple yous when that is clearly not the case. As geauxtohell's link stated "scientists are bad salesman." We have traditionally had a poor track record of broadcasting the truth behind science.

 

[FA_Q2]

"ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition."

observation: So someone's observed god?
reasoned consideration: it's reasonable to say god exists when you haven't seen it?
rational supposition: rational would necessitate something concrete.

I am not an IDer but have heard it put in this frame:
obervation: Life is incredibly diverse, complex and fragile (the last one I would take an argument with but there is a balance in life nonetheless) It has many nuances and countinues to suprise us with its complexities.

Rational supposition: Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order.

rational supposition: There was an intelligence that must have designed and put into motion the creation of life because of the complexity.

That is a perfectly valid set of beliefs. There sheer statistical nightmare it is for life to even begin let alone survive place some credence to this world view. Again, it is my belief that we are completely incorrect on this point. Some of the occurrences on this world led me to believe that life is extremely likely to occur, not rare but the science has not fully got there yet.

 

[konradv]

Rational supposition: Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order.
-----------------------------

Things aren't totally random, however. There are Laws of Science that constituents of life have to obey. That's where the order out of chaos comes. That's why evolutionists believe you can get life from a mix of chemicals, but if you mixed up bunch of airplane parts you wouldn't get a working plane, because no such Laws exist for its construction.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there should be a point of clarification here.

I don't believe that there is or has ever been a restriction on stemcell research. Not even embrionic stemcell research.

There IS/was a policy in the previous administrations not to use federal funding for embrionic stemcell research.

It is here that morality, whether or not any individual sees it as a moral issue, comes into play in scientific matters.

Is it immoral to refuse to fund painful or cruel scientific experiments on animals?

Is it immoral to establish rules and regulations for the extent humans can be used as human guenea pigs?

Is it immoral to closely evaluate, monitor, and possibly restrict psychological experiments on school children?

Is it immoral to restrict or prohibit research into certain kinds of biological products?

Each of us may see different things as moral or immoral, but as has been pointed out, it is not only moral, but can be morally imperative for government to be involved in science. Or to refuse to endorse certain scientific stuff.

And if it is seen as immoral by some to demand that children accept Evolution as unchallengeable fact, and others see it as immoral to allow Intelligent Design to be considered as a rational concept, there are many of us who believe all things should be fair game for discussion in the classroom.

But Evolution should not be taught as if it was mandatory religion.
And Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

But both should be allowed to be part of the process.

 

[JoLouis]

"ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition."

observation: So someone's observed god?
reasoned consideration: it's reasonable to say god exists when you haven't seen it?
rational supposition: rational would necessitate something concrete.

I am not an IDer but have heard it put in this frame:
obervation: Life is incredibly diverse, complex and fragile (the last one I would take an argument with but there is a balance in life nonetheless) It has many nuances and countinues to suprise us with its complexities.

Rational supposition: Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order.

rational supposition: There was an intelligence that must have designed and put into motion the creation of life because of the complexity.

That is a perfectly valid set of beliefs. There sheer statistical nightmare it is for life to even begin let alone survive place some credence to this world view. Again, it is my belief that we are completely incorrect on this point. Some of the occurrences on this world led me to believe that life is extremely likely to occur, not rare but the science has not fully got there yet.

total bs

 

[Foxfyre]

"ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition."

observation: So someone's observed god?
reasoned consideration: it's reasonable to say god exists when you haven't seen it?
rational supposition: rational would necessitate something concrete.

I am not an IDer but have heard it put in this frame:
obervation: Life is incredibly diverse, complex and fragile (the last one I would take an argument with but there is a balance in life nonetheless) It has many nuances and countinues to suprise us with its complexities.

Rational supposition: Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order.

rational supposition: There was an intelligence that must have designed and put into motion the creation of life because of the complexity.

That is a perfectly valid set of beliefs. There sheer statistical nightmare it is for life to even begin let alone survive place some credence to this world view. Again, it is my belief that we are completely incorrect on this point. Some of the occurrences on this world led me to believe that life is extremely likely to occur, not rare but the science has not fully got there yet.

total bs

I really would like to have been a fly on the wall if you told Albert Einstein that this was total bs. Because FA_Q2 has pretty accurately summed up his views on the subject.

In what way do you conclude that your views are more rational than his?

 

[JoLouis]

Einstein was bordering on idiot-savant status.

"Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order". Randomness will eventually lead to high order and anything else, don't need to be an Einstein to figure that out.

"There was an intelligence that must have designed and put into motion the creation of life because of the complexity." That's a personal point of view, not one of his provable theories.

"Life is incredibly diverse, complex and fragile (the last one I would take an argument with but there is a balance in life nonetheless) It has many nuances and countinues to suprise us with its complexities." This again is a personal observation, not particularly pointing to anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

Einstein was bordering on idiot-savant status.

"Randomness leads to chaos and not high order and even less likely to complex order". Randomness will eventually lead to high order and anything else, don't need to be an Einstein to figure that out.

"There was an intelligence that must have designed and put into motion the creation of life because of the complexity." That's a personal point of view, not one of his provable theories.

"Life is incredibly diverse, complex and fragile (the last one I would take an argument with but there is a balance in life nonetheless) It has many nuances and countinues to suprise us with its complexities." This again is a personal observation, not particularly pointing to anything.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Einstein was so mentally challenged. I think nobody who has ever read the eloquent writings regarding mystery, religion, and humankind's place in the world could ever agree that Einstein was any kind of 'idiot-savant' however. The summary of all he wrote regarding his world view regarding Intelligent Design is summarized in this short statement, however:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

Bearing in mind that Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jews for heresy (being an Atheist), Spinoza, like Einstein, did not accept a concept of a personal God interacting with humans. In his view all that exists is "God" if we choose to attach such a name to the reality. About the simplest explanation of his beliefs that I've seen are here:

In propositions one through fourteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.
Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic “ontological proof for God's existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.”)

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.
Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[antagon]

ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition.

this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?

i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.

i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.

 

[Foxfyre]

ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition.

this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?

i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.

i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.

And I would have more respect for the Athiest camp if they weren't so eager to eradicate any concept of ID from the realm of education by mischaracterizing it as "Christian".

The fact is that ID has been around for a much longer time than has Christianity. And Christianity only presents one concept within the much larger scope of ID.

There are several Buddhist sects for instance who have adopted theories close to the Platonian model of ID and as you know, Buddhist do not believe in supernatural dieties and Plato lived more than 400 years before Christian was even a word.

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, born 499 BC, developed maybe the first recorded 'big bang' theory in his supposition that once all matter existed all together and within this mass of matter 'nous' (or mind) set up a vortex in the center and gradually spun it into wider and wider circles in a reasoned manner.

Aristotle conceived of a world/universe that was uncreated but included at its center a 'mover' who was unaware of its role but which caused all matter to behave as it did--certainly an intelligence at work but one unaware that it was having the effect that it did. Not a deity to be worshipped but simply a 'mind' or 'force' that created order out of what otherwise would have been chaos.

There were so many such theories and concepts expressed from some of the greatest minds the world has ever known.

Should students not be taught of such thoughts from the great scientists of the past? Should students not be taught that science is an incomplete and ever evolving discipline and cannot yet answer many, even most questions yet to be answered? Should students not consider whether indeed everything happens by pure happenstance--something science cannot either prove or falsify--or is it possible that there is an intelligence and purpose behind it all?

How could any student be harmed, and what religious doctrine would be taught, by acknowledging that there are such thoughts out there and they are perfectly logical and perfectly rational and go back as far as recorded history itself?

Education is not to shield the student from all but what the teacher believes. Education is to introduce the student to all possibilities, to be able to think critically, and to understand that just because we don't have answers for something does not mean that an answer does not exist.

 

[antagon]

i went to catholic schools almost exclusively between 4th-12th grade. . there was never a need to insert the notion of an intelligent designer into biology. i did have comprehensive religious education every year on top of what other schools taught. that's not ok for public schools, i guess, and i think they can do better to focus on the subjects they have, its indicated.

ID is a new concept and was arranged in an attempt to infiltrate science curriculum in public schools; its christian pedigree is pretty clear.

that people are and have always been thankful and awed by God, gods, and nature has little to do with the validity of ID as non-philosophical subject matter. ID would be a rewriting of history were someone to use that term to describe buddhist interpretations of nature, or that of any faith which does not subscribe explicitly to that brand-name. I hope history isn't next.

as a christian myself, i believe that God created us and the universe; as a chemical engineer, and with a BSc in biology, i've learned a bit about how. i have no use for ID, granted these facts. who does?