Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

[HoundedbyHeaven]

---

maybe yen could give you a better reply, but i agree with you to some degree with ID and macroevolutionary theory, but I don't know why you mentioned creationist movement...

What I meant was that the creationist movements and I share the same opinion that Darwinian macroevolutionary theory is also a loose theory.

"Technically" yes ID does not mention God, even though most of its proponents are Christians (Behe, Dembski sp?i) and have mentioned God when referring to ID. The Discovery Institute and IDEA talks about God too.

One of the descriptions for teh IDEA courses are:
"The course is open to anyone and will be taught in conjunction with Coastland Christian Bible College and University and Faith Seminary. " (Its hard to gain credibility if they're linked with religion....maybe thats why some are ostracized in the academic (unfair? maybe....but understandable...its hard to argue from a scientific point of view)

Well, I don't think the U.S. government would allow the teaching of I.D. in public schools to include its theological implications.

Personally, I don't think they want to offend other religions, so they gave a blanket statement "it must have been designed". Nothing wrong with that, but since I'm a Christian I intepreted intelligent designer as God, which I'm sure a lot of Christians who support ID do as well.

So do I, and so do many former atheist scientists.

I don't know if there is an official response by the vatican. If the pope supports ID in the classroom, then the pope's chief astronomer (Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/...ican_evolution should agree with him.

Doesn't have to be. Catholics may or may not believe in Darwinian macroevolutionary theory for as long as they believe that the Judaeo-Christian God is the One, True Creator and that the entire human race descended from one male and one female human parents, immaculate in the beginning but fell into sin later on. Papal infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals. Beyond that, the Church begins to err.

I briefly looked at it. IDEA adopts the The National Academy of Sciences view if it is testable. Personally, I think theyr misuse of the point reverse engineering, but I'm not an expert. However, the National Academy of Science argued ID is not testable. I remember from their book about evolution and other theories of origin.

Hmm, quite interesting to investigate. Thanks for this vital piece of information, brother in Christ.

I guess I simplified it too much. Science and relgion can coexist. I agree with that and I believe so do you. But where do you draw the line(i think that's where you and I differ). I'm assuming you don't since you don't see why religion could sometimes undermine science.

Religion and science, when properly understood, could never undermine each other but instead complement each other-- I think you would agree with this.

Like I said before, a lot of scientist were devoted Christians and there is nothing wrong with that. But how can their be scientific progress if scientists turn to God for an explanation?

It seems clear to me now that the truth that the universe was created by a divine being on purpose and with purpose, to you, does not seem to qualify as a motivation for believers to become scientist. As I've mention before, this is precisely the very motivation for those great Christian scientific minds to found the branches of science.

I would not be surprised if the misrepresentation of the Galileo controversy contributed to your skepticism to this powerfully motivational truth.

Scientist can only seek natural explanations. So it's like asking myself in terms of science, math, given x and y .... how does this work(in the best way we can through natural explanations of physics)? I believe that's the way science has made breakthrough is pushing themselves to the limits. You can't deny the religious implications of ID.

Considering, for example, the Big Bang Theory, the most popular theory on the origin of the cosmos to date, again, I have to disagree-- parts of the Big Bang Theory clearly defy natural explanation and yet it is regarded as a scientific theory. Scientists refuse to even attempt to explain such parts because they clearly cannot be explain naturally. As such, why formulate a model with aspects that are naturally inexplicable?

Shalom.

[h00ters]

Re: Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

not necessarily "believe" but it is definitely more logical theory than the "adam & eve" or intelligent design theories.

[yen]

@Beetlebum - I envy you.Â* I've been trying to find a channel around here which shows Nova.Â* Wala gyud.Â* BBC World stopped showing it a while back.Â* Tried to order that Newton docu from the PBS site, but I have to jump through a few hoops first.


@h00ters - that's similar to how I think too.Â* I actually learned about both Evolution and something similar to ID in school.Â* Evolution was taught in science class.Â* The something like ID in religion class.Â* My Religion teachers were pretty logical.Â* =)Â* For example, they explained about the Miracle of the Many Fishes and Loaves of Bread that Jesus performed.Â* They explained that when people saw that Jesus was sharing his meal, they also started sharing.Â* That's why it seemed like so many fishes and loaves of bread appeared.Â* =)Â* I went to a Roman Catholic School.Â* I don't know if it's true for all Roman Catholic Schools, but religion was taught in a fairly logical way at my school.

This ID problem is fairly new to me actually.Â* Apparently, in the US, it's against the law for state/public schools to promote a religious faith.Â* When I learned that, I thought - Ah... that's why Archie and friends don't seem to have a religion class in Riverdale High.Â* =)

Let's see...Â* in the... ?1980's? the US court ruled that Creationism wasn't a science, but a religion.Â* Intelligent Design says it's not a religion, but a science; however, most scientists say that ID is just Creationism in disguise.Â* Anyway, parents in Dover are suing the Pro-ID school board members for teaching ID in school.Â* A US court will be ruling on that case in January.


Sorry Hounded, still more bad news for Intelligent Design.Â* It seems that more people online are interested in Anti-ID stuff than Pro-ID stuff.Â* If this is really the case, then it's not only the majority of scientists but also most of the media and their readers are Anti-ID.

Right now, the biggest ID-related news is about the University of Kansas offering a course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."Â* This is quite a blow to ID.Â* It was in Kansas that ID had recently won a victory, but that victory seems erased now.

Personally, I'd worry more about the media than scientists.Â* Scientists... sometimes argue in a way which is kinda hard for a lot of people to follow (just stating a personal observation, no insult to scientists intended =)). However, the media is an expert in promoting their preferred point of view though they are supposed to be neutral.Â* (again just stating a personal observation)

Take a look at the following news article for instance.Â* When I found them, they were both Rank 1 on Google.

Intelligent Design, Uninteligint Argumint
from Get Underground, CA - 6 hours ago...
http://www.getunderground.com/underg...rticle_ID=1912

At Santee’s Institute for Creation Research, evolution is a leap ...
San Diego CityBEAT
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=3783

Both reporters/writers write about the history of the development of intelligent design, and both reporters/writers are clearly Anti-ID.Â* The title of the first article already insults ID straight-away.Â* The title of the second news article seems neutral (I actually thought at first it was a Pro-ID article), but after reading it - I feel it's even more damning on ID than the first one.

According to the second article's author - Paul Hormick - the Pro-ID scientist he interviewed - John Morris - told him:

"Paul, repeat after me. Evolution is a religion."

Hounded, is this true?Â* Do people who support ID really think Evolution is a religion?

[HoundedbyHeaven]

[quote@h00ters - that's similar to how I think too.� I actually learned about both Evolution and something similar to ID in school.� Evolution was taught in science class.� The something like ID in religion class.� My Religion teachers were pretty logical.� =)� For example, they explained about the Miracle of the Many Fishes and Loaves of Bread that Jesus performed.� They explained that when people saw that Jesus was sharing his meal, they also started sharing.� That's why it seemed like so many fishes and loaves of bread appeared.� =)� I went to a Roman Catholic School.� I don't know if it's true for all Roman Catholic Schools, but religion was taught in a fairly logical way at my school.Well, it's not true in all Roman Catholic schools then. In my Roman Catholic elementary and high school, all miracles mentioned in the Bible are taught as miracles. Religion was taught in a fairly logical manner as well-- the Lord Jesus Christ is God, God has supernatural power, miracles are supernatural by definition, all miracles in the Bible are therefore supernatural events.

If the Lord Jesus did not multiply supernaturally the loaves and the fishes, then I would doubt He actually did any miracle at all. No offense but it is really preposterous to imagine The-Word-of-God-Who-Is-God, who had the invisible and the visible worlds (and all who dwell in them) created through Him, merely inspiring the crowds to share a meal.

Reductionist reading of the Bible have never been convincing to me.

Sorry Hounded, still more bad news for Intelligent Design.� It seems that more people online are interested in Anti-ID stuff than Pro-ID stuff.� If this is really the case, then it's not only the majority of scientists but also most of the media and their readers are Anti-ID.

Sadly, you're right. But a poll said that most Americans still disagree Darwinian macroevolutionary theory. I wonder how many of them are not online?

Right now, the biggest ID-related news is about the University of Kansas offering a course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."� This is quite a blow to ID.� It was in Kansas that ID had recently won a victory, but that victory seems erased now.

Why would that degree of a victory be erased by a course arranged by one college? For the victory to be erased, the standards should be, in my mind, restored to the former one and the redefinition of science redefined again to the way it was.

Personally, I'd worry more about the media than scientists.� Scientists... sometimes argue in a way which is kinda hard for a lot of people to follow (just stating a personal observation, no insult to scientists intended =)). However, the media is an expert in promoting their preferred point of view though they are supposed to be neutral.� (again just stating a personal observation)

I absolutely agree with you on that one, yen.

Hounded, is this true?� Do people who support ID really think Evolution is a religion?

As far as the overwhelming support atheists and the agnostics, scientist or not, show for Darwinian macroevolutionary theory go, yes, many supporters (including me) of I.D. think that the theory is a religion to such people.

You see, the many flaws of Darwinian macroevolutionary theory make those atheists and agnostics who support it no different to a church-going Christian. To them, time and chance and nature replace God, because naturalist philosophy equips time and chance and nature with divine powers.

Shalom.

[yen]

Sorry, Hounded.Â* But right now, I am... seriously confused by ID-people.Â* I was actually hoping you would refute that news article that said that ID-people think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Since ID-people do think Evolution is a religion... it's just all very crazy to me now.Â* You're criticizing Evolution because you think it's a religion

Most scientists say that ID is a religion, but ID people say ID is science.

ID people say that Evolution is a religion, but most scientists support Evolution.

Heaven help me.Â* Â*I am very confused.Â* Â*I needÂ* to sleep on this revelation to make better sense of it.


By the way, Hounded.Â* Are you 100% sure that ID is the correct theory?Â* You're absolutely sure you won't have to change your mind about it later on?Â* As for me, I have already said that I'll support whichever theory is more helpful in the field of medicine.

I'm asking because a proper scientist keeps an open mind.Â* Scientists I respect and admire have admitted they were wrong and are humble enough to change their mind when they are proven wrong.Â* This was so with Newton and Einstein.Â* Stephen Hawking too.Â* I'm not sure about Darwin, but Huxley - who is generally considered as Darwin's greatest supporter- has displayed this attitude. Huxley was very anti-Evolution. He tore apart Evolution theories that came out before Darwin's. However, after reading Darwin's work, he changed his mind and not only supported Darwin - Huxley was also a thorough critic of Darwin's work.

I think Carl Sagan described this sort of attitude very well.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

If you say that you are absolutely sure about ID, I promise I'll refrain from answering your posts criticizing Evolution.

[jhiade]

BIG BANG?

Kabasa mo Angels and Demons ni Dan Brown? Si Dr. Vetra explains it...

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Sorry, Hounded.� But right now, I am... seriously confused by ID-people.� I was actually hoping you would refute that news article that said that ID-people think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Since ID-people do think Evolution is a religion... it's just all very crazy to me now.� You're criticizing Evolution because you think it's a religion

Again, let me remind and insist a clear distinction between macroevolution and microevolution.

Creationist and I.D. movements agree with Darwinian microevolutionary theory but not macroevolutionary theory. Therefore, accusing such movements of claiming "Evolution" lock, stock and barrel is a religion is an error.

"Aha, so you call Darwinian macroevolutionary theory a religion, then!" Wrong again. What we call a religion is the insistence of supporters of such a theory, scientist or not, atheist or not, agnostic or not on the correctness of Darwinian macroevolutionary theory to explain the origin of life, despite its devastating flaws. Because such people believe in such a theory with the same passion Flat-earth creationists believe that our planet is flat, to them, Darwinian macroevolutionary theory is a religion.

When you believe in something despite its obvious errors, that is called "blind faith", because they refuse to recognize and accept the errors. Religion is built on faith, including "blind faith".

Therefore, Darwinian macroevolutionary theory to them is a religion because such people treat it so.

Most scientists say that ID is a religion, but ID people say ID is science.

ID people say that Evolution is a religion, but most scientists support Evolution.

Heaven help me.� �I am very confused.� �I need� to sleep on this revelation to make better sense of it.

By the way, Hounded.� Are you 100% sure that ID is the correct theory?� You're absolutely sure you won't have to change your mind about it later on?� As for me, I have already said that I'll support whichever theory is more helpful in the field of medicine.

Of course not. No human being can be absolutely certain of anything...or else he would be God Almighty himself. And I'm still a human being, last time I checked.

All I'm saying is that I.D. is a valid scientific theory in as much as Darwinian evolutionary theory is a theory. In fact, since I.D. agrees with Darwinian microevolutionary theory, as I've repeatedly hammered in this thread, Charles Darwin, therefore, positively contributed to I.D. Let me say that again: Intelligent Design agrees with Darwinian microevolutionary theory, therefore it incorporates such a theory. However, I.D. disagrees with Darwinian macroevolutionary theory, therefore it proposes an a different theory on the origin of life.

I do not dismiss the possibility that Darwinian macroevolution actually took place. That is always possible. But years after Darwin propose this theory, the weight of the evidence appears to rest not on the theory's scale.

I'm asking because a proper scientist keeps an open mind.� Scientists I respect and admire have admitted they were wrong and are humble enough to change their mind when they are proven wrong.� This was so with Newton and Einstein.� Stephen Hawking too.� I'm not sure about Darwin, but Huxley - who is generally considered as Darwin's greatest supporter- has displayed this attitude. Huxley was very anti-Evolution. He tore apart Evolution theories that came out before Darwin's. However, after reading Darwin's work, he changed his mind and not only supported Darwin - Huxley was also a thorough critic of Darwin's work.

I think Carl Sagan described this sort of attitude very well.

I absolutely agree with you on that one, Yen.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

If you say that you are absolutely sure about ID, I promise I'll refrain from answering your posts criticizing Evolution.

Well I'm not, so let the intellectual exchange proceed.

Shalom.

[yen]

Ah... no, sorry, really sorry, Hounded - I'm just going to stay out of further "intellectual exchanges" with you.Â* Maybe Beetlebum will continue with you.

My reason for staying out is because you are arguing against evolution because you think it's a religion belief.

Whereas I would be defending evolution because I think it's a scientific theory.

In a nutshell, it's a science vs religion issue.Â* Â*I promised myself a long time ago I would stay out of science vs religion discussions.

In the case of your and Beetlebum's discussion, I now actually think it's like a religion vs religion issue.Â* Beetlebum thinks ID is more on faith than science, and you think Evolution is a religion.Â* To me, it's like the two of you are arguing against each other's religious beliefs.

Religion vs Religion is even more out of bounds for me.Â* Ever since an acquaintance told me a quotation by Benjamin Franklin about such discussions, I have learned to stay clear of such issues.

Benjamin Franklin had this to say about religion vs religion.

Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so.

Made me feel foolish really.Â* (Yeah... I was in a religion vs religion debate back then.)Â* ^^;;;Â* Benjamin Franklin has a way with a words.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Ah... no, sorry, really sorry, Hounded - I'm just going to stay out of further "intellectual exchanges" with you.� Maybe Beetlebum will continue with you.

My reason for staying out is because you are arguing against evolution because you think it's a religion belief.

Fine.

But then again, I am not labelling Darwinian macroevolutionary theory as a religious belief, but the illogical confidence its supporters pour on it.

If you insist on your generalization, so be it.

Whereas I would be defending evolution because I think it's a scientific theory.

As if I'm claiming its not.

In a nutshell, it's a science vs religion issue.� �I promised myself a long time ago I would stay out of science vs religion discussions.

Yes-- some evolutionists call I.D. a religion while either failing or refusing to recognize that their treatment of Darwinian macroevolutionary theory is such.

In the case of your and Beetlebum's discussion, I now actually think it's like a religion vs religion issue.� Beetlebum thinks ID is more on faith than science, and you think Evolution is a religion.� To me, it's like the two of you are arguing against each other's religious beliefs.

Like I said, mistaken generalization. But if you insist...oh, well.

Shalom.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

If you say that you are absolutely sure about ID, I promise I'll refrain from answering your posts criticizing Evolution.

By the way, whatever happen to this promise?

Shalom.