Dissent from Darwinism

[jpo117]

So bigg cheese doesn't think Intelligent Design belongs in science class. Anyone else?

Also, if your teacher expected you to accept evolutionary theory as a settled and unchanging matter of faith without daring to question it in any way then your teacher sucked and instilled in you a horribly inaccurate view of what science is. That's no reason to ensure future generations of teachers sucked as badly as yours did.

 

[DustinG]

Did we say we had the answers? It has been stated over and over that Intellegent Design proponents believe by FAITH. I do happen to believe that what I see around me affirms by belief, but that's not the point.

Actually Intelligent Design does not require faith, it takes the true position of science as agnostic (God can neither be proven or denied, unlike most evolutionary scientists who are atheists--denying the existence of God without proof).

"[T]he scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text . . . Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text."

What is the theory of Intelligent Design?

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

What is the origin of Intelligent Design?

"[N]ew research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

 

[DustinG]

So bigg cheese doesn't think Intelligent Design belongs in science class. Anyone else?

Also, if your teacher expected you to accept evolutionary theory as a settled and unchanging matter of faith without daring to question it in any way then your teacher sucked and instilled in you a horribly inaccurate view of what science is. That's no reason to ensure future generations of teachers sucked as badly as yours did.

Lol, this is all undergraduate colleges nowadays. Students do not question professors, they get lectured on what the answers are. When was the last time you were in college? Why do you think the majority of college students are sheep?

Actually in graduate school also, if you question the current theory usually the professor dismisses you and you are the class idiot that is too stupid to understand.

 

[jpo117]

Actually, DustinG, those links (particularly the second one) were helpful. Thanks for posting those.

Regarding the Big Bang, I feel the same way about it as I feel about macroevolution: eh, whatever. A consensus of people smarter than me who study this stuff professionally feel that's the model that best fits the observable evidence so ok. Do I "believe" in it? Again, eh, whatever. Learning that stuff isn't about going on a faith journey, its about developing an understanding of the world around you as best you can with the evidence at hand, all while understanding that things we think we know are replaced with new information all the time. If incontrovertible evidence came to light tomorrow conclusively disproving one or both of them I wouldn't lose sleep; in fact, I'd be excited and interested in learning why.

As for college, graduated in 2009 (computer science; no life sciences here lol). Lots of math and physics, with some elective biology thrown in for fun. I don't recall any profs disallowing discussion or refusing to answer hard questions but that's just one person's experience at one school.

 

[Denny347]

Actually Intelligent Design does not require faith, it takes the true position of science as agnostic (God can neither be proven or denied, unlike most evolutionary scientists who are atheists--denying the existence of God without proof).

Umm, since God cannot be proven, He must exist? We do not believe in Bigfoot without proof, we do not believe climate change without proof, we do not believe baby mama showing up at your door with a kid you knew nothing about without proof. But God requires NO proof? Do all Gods get a pass on proof or just yours? Religion is a product of a primative people that had no other explanation for world around them. The more we grow in knowledge, the less necessary religion becomes. Reason and logic should dictate actions, not primitive superstitions.

 

[Denny347]

Lol, this is all undergraduate colleges nowadays. Students do not question professors, they get lectured on what the answers are. When was the last time you were in college? Why do you think the majority of college students are sheep?

Actually in graduate school also, if you question the current theory usually the professor dismisses you and you are the class idiot that is too stupid to understand.

So, you advocating "no college"? Calling BS on the above. Wife went back to school for her Masters...NOTHING like you are saying. Was nothing like you are saying when I got my Bachelors.

 

[DustinG]

So, you advocating "no college"? Calling BS on the above. Wife went back to school for her Masters...NOTHING like you are saying. Was nothing like you are saying when I got my Bachelors.

I'm not advocating "no college" as you say, but I am saying don't take everything at face value. Had I believed what I had been taught then I would believe (1) the Constitution is a living breathing document; (2) Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression with spending; (3) the United States was not founded as a Christian nation (you can argue whether or not it is today, but we were founded as one); etc.

What I have listed is taught as fact in my college experience, I have had to keep my mouth shut so that I am not that student who speaks out and is viewed as the village idiot, while other students had their brain soak these things up as if it were the literal truth. I have seen other students who did speak out looked at like they were the village idiot and the professor shut them down and move along.

 

[DustinG]

Umm, since God cannot be proven, He must exist? We do not believe in Bigfoot without proof, we do not believe climate change without proof, we do not believe baby mama showing up at your door with a kid you knew nothing about without proof. But God requires NO proof? Do all Gods get a pass on proof or just yours? Religion is a product of a primative people that had no other explanation for world around them. The more we grow in knowledge, the less necessary religion becomes. Reason and logic should dictate actions, not primitive superstitions.

If you read what I had posted you would have seen that the official position is agnostic. Reason and logic have gone out the window with atheism. You have to completely shut your brain down to not acknowledge their is a possibility that God exists. Agnostics take the position it is unknown whether there is or isn't, while atheism is completely narrowed and closed minded.

 

[buford t justice]

Agnostic is just too noncommittal,it's like not having the courage to take a stance so you don't offend anyone.

I have more respect for theists and nontheists than I do agnostics.

 

[DustinG]

Actually, DustinG, those links (particularly the second one) were helpful. Thanks for posting those.

Regarding the Big Bang, I feel the same way about it as I feel about macroevolution: eh, whatever. A consensus of people smarter than me who study this stuff professionally feel that's the model that best fits the observable evidence so ok. Do I "believe" in it? Again, eh, whatever. Learning that stuff isn't about going on a faith journey, its about developing an understanding of the world around you as best you can with the evidence at hand, all while understanding that things we think we know are replaced with new information all the time. If incontrovertible evidence came to light tomorrow conclusively disproving one or both of them I wouldn't lose sleep; in fact, I'd be excited and interested in learning why.

As for college, graduated in 2009 (computer science; no life sciences here lol). Lots of math and physics, with some elective biology thrown in for fun. I don't recall any profs disallowing discussion or refusing to answer hard questions but that's just one person's experience at one school.

I happen to like math and science also. I am not advocating that it be controlled by religion, actually quite the opposite. I am against it being controlled by atheism (which is a religion) which is the current situation. Science is meant to study the natural world by what it can and cannot prove. The real position of science is supposed to be agnostic but when it is being controlled by the atheistic religion it is not impartial. That is the sad state of our scientific community.

 

[DustinG]

Agnostic is just too noncommittal,it's like not having the courage to take a stance so you don't offend anyone.

I have more respect for theists and nontheists than I do agnostics.

Intelligent Design scientists have their own personal religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheism, but they do not let that get in the way of their research. The research itself is agnostic, which is where science should be.

 

[Compatriot G]

Agnostic is just too noncommittal,it's like not having the courage to take a stance so you don't offend anyone.

I have more respect for theists and nontheists than I do agnostics.

If you look at this philosophically, agnostic should be the correct position. If one does not believe in God, then they should be agnostic, not atheistic. If you say there is no God, then that means you have searched every corner of the universe and haven't found any proof of God. Since this isn't possible, the better position would be agnostic.

 

[buford t justice]

I will have to agree with and expand that scientists should be open minded in all aspects of their research.

If they start believing without any facts the outcome will no doubt be skewed.

But of course that's where theories come in handy they are not belief they are theories.

 

[DustinG]

I will have to agree with and expand that scientists should be open minded in all aspects of their research.

If they start believing without any facts the outcome will no doubt be skewed.

But of course that's where theories come in handy they are not belief they are theories.

The problem lies with the fact that high percentage of scientists (I believe over 90%) working on the theory of evolution are atheists, which means they have already closed their mind and are not open to the existence of God. When you are not open minded and are looking at the evidence, the theory is skewed to fit with their atheistic viewpoint of the evidence.

 

[jpo117]

If you read what I had posted you would have seen that the official position is agnostic. Reason and logic have gone out the window with atheism. You have to completely shut your brain down to not acknowledge their is a possibility that God exists. Agnostics take the position it is unknown whether there is or isn't, while atheism is completely narrowed and closed minded.

What part of evolutionary theory denies the existence of a deity? Just because it contradicts your chosen creation story doesn't mean it denies the existence of a deity.

Science must necessarily exclude the existence of a theoretical omnipotent creator for which it has no empirical evidence because it simply doesn't deal with those sorts of things; that's what metaphysics is for. Even if God created our existence, it's not science's job to show that. It's science's job to explain how. Where would our culture be if every time we came up against something we couldn't explain, instead of trying to figure it out, we just threw up our hands and said "Well, I guess God did it and that's good enough for me!"? I'm guessing the dark ages.

Science doesn't care if God created the biodiversity we see all around us. Science cares how it was created. That's where ID fails. "God did it" is not science, it's history. Go yell at your history teachers if you're upset it's not taught in schools.

 

[jpo117]

The problem lies with the fact that high percentage of scientists (I believe over 90%) working on the theory of evolution are atheists, which means they have already closed their mind and are not open to the existence of God. When you are not open minded and are looking at the evidence, the theory is skewed to fit with their atheistic viewpoint of the evidence.

Maybe a high percentage of scientists don't believe in God because there is not compelling empirical evidence for the existence of God, which is what science deals with. Are you suggesting that scientists should allow their personal non-scientific beliefs to affect the results of their scientific research?

 

[DustinG]

Maybe a high percentage of scientists don't believe in God because there is not compelling empirical evidence for the existence of God, which is what science deals with. Are you suggesting that scientists should allow their personal non-scientific beliefs to affect the results of their scientific research?

The problem is that they have allowed their personal scientific beliefs (atheism) affect the results. Recent studies have confirmed that the higher disbelief in God in the science profession is a result of upbringing and their family status, not their area of expertise. Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307.

Meaning they were atheists before going into the profession, not as a result of examing the evidence.

 

[CarmelHP]

Which is why it doesn't belong in biology class. Put it in one of the soft sciences.

Purely Philosophy and Theology.

 

[bigg cheese]

Actually, quite the opposite, by its very nature. Theories are absolutely NOT taken on faith. They are testable. To stand, they must make solid predictions of something we can then observe. That is how it works. You and I may need to *believe* in the scientist that does the actual work, but the scientist certainly does not *believe* - she tests.

OK, show me the tests that show that the big bang happened (by showcasing another one), for abiogenesis (by creating life from non-life), and show me macro-evolution (by doing it). And then when all that is shown, show me how the conditions used in the lab can occur in nature, an uncontrolled setting.

A theory isn't faith -- unprovable assumptions are. The foundation is sand, pure and simple.

Does it fail at describing Genesis? Sure. It also fails at describing Gravity. Then again, both are out of its purview. Forcing Evolutionary Theory to describe Genesis works about as well as forcing Christianity to define Gravity. Simply outside of its realm.

Evolution is not required for gravity to exist. Gravity is testable and observable, as i said. My above challenges are not. Presuming macroevolution from dead things that may or not be related (To be observable, you would have to possess an entire "family tree" of actual animals going from one kind to the other. It doesn't exist.)

 

[eldirector]

I would guess that a large percentage of Theologists allow their personal beliefs to influence their work. Maybe we should discount them as well?

I am not worried about the personal beliefs of scientists. The rigors of scientific process have historically corrected any short-term mistakes. If anything, I am more worried about religion (meaning Judeo-Christian), politics, and corporations influencing research - since they have ALWAYS influenced research and the reported results.