www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan150.html

good read, thanks for posting

....The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake....

This statement is true for both evolution and ID.  IMHO evolution is as much of an "agenda-driven science" as ID.  Neither of them are "genuinely scientific".

Shok

Quoted: ....The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake.... This statement is true for both evolution and ID.  IMHO evolution is as much of an "agenda-driven science" as ID.  Neither of them are "genuinely scientific". Shok

All you need to do is to convince the vast majority of scientists (the guys actually qualified to make that determination) that they are all wrong and you are right.

The Nobel Prize awaits....

Quoted: Quoted: ....The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake.... This statement is true for both evolution and ID.  IMHO evolution is as much of an "agenda-driven science" as ID.  Neither of them are "genuinely scientific". Shok All you need to do is to convince the vast majority of scientists (the guys actually qualified to make that determination) that they are all wrong and you are right. The Nobel Prize awaits....

How about we just prove that evolution is not genuinely scientific or how about I prove its just a hypothesis?

Over 100years investigating evolution and not one transitional species or so-called "missing link".  Evolution has yet to be observed (see rule 1) and so it is a hypothesis at best.

Shok

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake.... This statement is true for both evolution and ID.  IMHO evolution is as much of an "agenda-driven science" as ID.  Neither of them are "genuinely scientific". Shok All you need to do is to convince the vast majority of scientists (the guys actually qualified to make that determination) that they are all wrong and you are right. The Nobel Prize awaits.... How about we just prove that evolution is not genuinely scientific or how about I prove its just a hypothesis? Over 100years investigating evolution and not one transitional species or so-called "missing link".  Evolution has yet to be observed (see rule 1) and so it is a hypothesis at best. Shok

and in past discussions I have linked you to talk origins where they show examples of transitional species and speciation both in the lab and in the wild.

You just choose to ignore them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake.... This statement is true for both evolution and ID.  IMHO evolution is as much of an "agenda-driven science" as ID.  Neither of them are "genuinely scientific". Shok All you need to do is to convince the vast majority of scientists (the guys actually qualified to make that determination) that they are all wrong and you are right. The Nobel Prize awaits.... How about we just prove that evolution is not genuinely scientific or how about I prove its just a hypothesis? Over 100years investigating evolution and not one transitional species or so-called "missing link".  Evolution has yet to be observed (see rule 1) and so it is a hypothesis at best. Shok

__

Evolution is a theory, and the general scientific community would dispose your argument that it's a hypothesis at best.  Truly, Shok, you're running into logic problems.

The theory of relativity is still...yes! a theory.  Though it generally remains the best model we have to explain observations.

If ID were so intelligent, why, for example, would eggs (let's say chicken eggs) be so fragile?  Wouldn't something truly intelligent make progeneration fail-safe?

Quoted: If ID were so intelligent, why, for example, would eggs (let's say chicken eggs) be so fragile?  Wouldn't something truly intelligent make progeneration fail-safe?

Do you mean making eggs too hard for the chick to peck out of and installing a hatch with a release handle on the inside?

Quoted: Quoted: If ID were so intelligent, why, for example, would eggs (let's say chicken eggs) be so fragile?  Wouldn't something truly intelligent make progeneration fail-safe? Do you mean making eggs too hard for the chick to peck out of and installing a hatch with a release handle on the inside?

___

I don't know...perhaps the ID perspective that space aliens were involved in ID may have something to bear.  What else have you to bear?

Quoted: good read, thanks for posting

Are you swayed by his reasoning?

It would almost be worth letting it happen, just to validate the fact that ID, as a theory cannot be unbiased with respect to religion because it's a 'begged question'.  Zealots of all religions will be more than happy to tell you who the designer is, now that the pump is primed...

ID is religion coming to terms with science (at least a part of it).

It's amazing how many folk will be dogmatic in their 'evolution is the last word in science' stance while at the same time claim the Church is anti-reason or anti-science because of what 'happened' with Galileo.

So let's review: Galileo wrote a book claiming that the earth circled the sun. But he wrote it in direct challenge to the reining scientific minds of his age that believed that the sun circled the earth.

Both sides wanted the Church to teach its version of things as 'THE OFFICIAL' version. Nowhere did the Pope or church take sides. But churchmen being scholars of their time typically sided with those who thought that seeing the sun rise and set = the sun moves and the earth doesn't.

So the observable data seemed to back up the ancient theory.

Galileo was able to make good arguments on behalf of the moon circling the earth (not really doubted) such as tides etc. but nothing he wrote PROVED his theory. Its proof took a century or more of experimentation and theorizing to be proved....by the pendulum experiment (that the earth spins on its axis) and by the discovery of a stellar parallax (which required better telescopes than Galileo and his contemporaries had).

So much for the Church being anti-science.

He was canned for picking fights with his contemporaries (whose prestige and incomes were threatened...sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it), insulting his patron - who just so happened to be the Pope - and for calling into question theology.

So he was charged on a technicality....the Church didn't erect a dogma or even a doctrine opposing him or forbidding further research (the Jesuits ran an observatory in Rome after all).

Fast forward to the present. Now millions of 'scientists' have based their careers on the dogma that all life on the planet 'evolved' from a single cell organism that was produced by inorganic substances hundreds if not billions of years ago.

We have zero proof for this. We simple note that before a certain time there is no evidence of living things....but then an explosion of certain life forms. Then an explosion of other forms...and then other forms...and then extinctions and explosions of still newer forms of life, down to the present.

We have elephants... but have fossils of woolly mammoths. But going back farther... nothing - at least nothing that resembles an elephant. We have other forms of life that wishful thinking pins as "the ancestor" of elephants simply because the dots must be connected dammit!

All the while the 'scientists' insist that life arose from what is not life....400 millions years ago, when they weren't around to take notes so stop asking silly questions dammit! Well, if inorganic stuff can be organized by chance into organic life way back then, why couldn't it have occured 150 million years ago? Or 60 million? or again and again and again?

Darwin hoped to connect the dots. Cows....dinosaurs....fish....plants....single cell organisms...unliving matter.

But what were HIS suppositions? What suppositions are inherant in modern evolutionary dogma?

That all life comes organically from the same origin - that bacteria came from virus that came from totally inorganic substances.? The dots are all we know for sure to exist: plant, animal, etc.

Darwin and cohorts ASSUME there is a SINGLE organic connection. We've all seen the family tree charts in National Geographic claiming that mammals came from reptiles...from birds, from fish, from plants from small critters from even smaller critters from mere matter. But no evidence.

Dots, but not lines.

And yet the scientists hold to this theory like the holy grail - stubborn, refusing to entertain alternatives....afraid, manifesting paranoia and projection.... acting very unscientific and curious and very much like men afraid their Ph.Ds are about to be scuttled by facts.

If we accept that God was the intelligent designer how does that stop us from asking further questions as to how he did what he manifestly did so well and with such intelligence?

How would ID halt the advance of science one whit? Finding or merely accepting an ultimate cause doesn't PRECLUDE one from seeking better understanding of proximate causes.

Quoted: Quoted: good read, thanks for posting Are you swayed by his reasoning?

No,  mainly because ID hasn't reached the point he is talking about yet.    When it becomes a viable theory with testable predictions, then the arguments he make are very valid and scientists will have to address them.

I did have a problem with his last paragraph.   The reason we have labs is so that students can verify what those scientists are telling them.   I was taught to question everything in science class.    

Quoted: How would ID halt the advance of science one whit? Finding or merely accepting an ultimate cause doesn't PRECLUDE one from seeking better understanding of proximate causes.

because science is about proximate causes.   The first cause is something that religion and philosophy concern themselves with.

By its very nature, even if science found the first cause we couldn't every say with 100% certainty it was actually the first cause.  There is always room for new information or a theory to be overturned.  We will always assume there is more to learn, even if we know it all.

If all that you want is melding of science with religous belief, then why not go with theistic evolution?
Why the need to invent a pseudo-scientific theory that amounts to nothing more than an attack on evolution?

The funny part is, ID will only strengthen evolutionary science.    By pointing out the holes in the theory, IDers are forcing scientists to strengthen the very thing IDers want torn down.  If we are really lucky those scientists  might actually find a problem and it would  result in an actual shift in evolutionary theory.  

I'm going to weigh in on this fray, as I'm one of those "scientist types" who happens to be involved in this very subject.

The whole evolution vs. intelligent design debate primarily consists of Athiests with very little grounding in biology bashing Christians with very little grounding in biology and vice versa.  The real kicker is that evolution and intelligent design probably aren't mutually exclusive.

The real issue is that genetics, self-regulating systems, or cybernetic systems if you want to use the old term, and self-organizing systems are not understood well enough to say one way or the other.  I can certainly see scenarios in which both intelligent design and evolution can co-exist; in fact, it's probably the most likely scenario, and I'll explain why in a long, rambling fashion.

Years ago, one of the guys who discovered the molecular structure of DNA came up with something that was named "The Central Principle of Genetics" or something along those lines.  Basically, this principle stated that information was transferred from the DNA to the protein; a one-way only transfer.  It wasn't accepted by all, of course, but it caught on enough to pick up the nickname.

This led to the idea that once the human genome, along with others, was understood, we could do anything with it.  Jurassic Park, etc.  Once the human genome was sequenced, people realized it was a bit more complex than that.  You needed what was called a genetic environment for the process by which the information contained in the DNA is transformed into proteins to work properly.  As you can see, this means no Jurassic Park, since we don't have any more dinosaur cells and couldn't do anything with the DNA even if we had it.

A cell is a very complex mechanism.  Currently, it's too complex for any human to even begin to understand how it works as a whole.  It is very sensitive to external disruptions and stimuli, though, which means that these things monkey with the genetic environment and thereby monkey with the transcription and translation process.  Although, no one really knows how much this affects the environment since the cell is not understood very well.  It does throw the central principle of genetics out the window, though.

This isn't a new development.  People with foresight were predicting this as early as the 1920s; it's just that no one knew enough to do anything with it until recently.  The study of self-regulating and self-organizing systems started in the 1930s and grew out of metaphors between biology and machines.  It was called cybernetics originally, and had very little to do with cyborgs.

So we have three possible scenarios, or more precisely, three ranges of scenarios.

We have the strict intelligent design folks, who would claim that life was designed and evolution is wrong.  This ignores a lot of biological obeservation, like the moths in industrial England and some artificial studies of evolutionary theory, like genetic algorithms in the field of artificial intelligence.

We have the strict evolution folks, who claim that life organized itself from nothing.  This is where a lot of scientific work is being done in the study of self-organizing systems.  One of the more popular definitions of self-organization is that evolution is a progression from stable state to stable state, but there are some problems with this mathematically and it doesn't really agree with thermodynamics and the concept of entropy as we understand them.  Self-organizing systems is a very young field, and a lot remains to be seen.

Then there is the approach which combines the two and I have to admit is my view on the whole argument.  I believe that life was designed to adapt to its environment.  I can't really give a good argument to this since no one really knows anything about the subject.  

It appears that genetic expression might be influenced by environment, and there are cases to support this, like sickle cell anemia/malaria protection and so forth.  Certainly radiation can cause mutations.  Evolution has been linked to phenotype, and thus to genotype, on a small scale, with the moths in industrial England and other observations.  We have two closely linked concepts and we know that we exist in this state.  But we also have observed behavior that contradicts what we think we know about how the universe operates with respect to thermodynamics and energy.    

If we assume there is a God who created life, most would assume He also created the universe and the laws by which it operates.  We don't really know humanity's purpose within that universe either, and one thing science doesn't do is give that answer to "Why?"  It only can give a small glimpse of "How?", at the most.

Currently, if you even come close to answering this one, it's Nobel worthy.  Because no one has a clue at the moment which of the three is actually correct, if any are.  Sorry if I seem rambly; I was up all night and am a little out of it.  I'll come back sometime tomorrow and try to clean this up if anyone cares.

Cliff Notes:

If either side knew a thing about biology, they wouldn't be arguing about this yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: good read, thanks for posting Are you swayed by his reasoning? No,  mainly because ID hasn't reached the point he is talking about yet.    When it becomes a viable theory with testable predictions, then the arguments he make are very valid and scientists will have to address them. I did have a problem with his last paragraph.   The reason we have labs is so that students can verify what those scientists are telling them.   I was taught to question everything in science class.

First, ID not reaching a certain point is an entirerly subjective opinion.
Second, evolution cannot be verified through in class observation. ID however can be studied through mathematics.

Quoted:
because science is about proximate causes.   The first cause is something that religion and philosophy concern themselves with.
And I am entirerly in support of bringing back philosophy to the school rooms. Would you be against this?



If all that you want is melding of science with religous belief, then why not go with theistic evolution?
This is a mistep on your part. The whole point is that ID need not have any connection to religion.
It is metaphysical, not religious. If you are against the teaching of metaphysics then you could not teach anything about inalienable rights as their premise is metaphysical.

Why the need to invent a pseudo-scientific theory that amounts to nothing more than an attack on evolution?
IS not every theory an attack on the legitimacy of another?

The funny part is, ID will only strengthen evolutionary science.    By pointing out the holes in the theory, IDers are forcing scientists to strengthen the very thing IDers want torn down.  If we are really lucky those scientists  might actually find a problem and it would  result in an actual shift in evolutionary theory.  
So again how can you be against it?

Quoted: First, ID not reaching a certain point is an entirerly subjective opinion. Second, evolution cannot be verified through in class observation. ID however can be studied through mathematics.

Its entirely subjective if I just look at it without studying anything or reading any ID literature and said  "this is wrong" without any inkling of what it was about.

Making an informed decision based on evidence is hardly subjective.   If it was, then saying we landed on the moon is subjective as well.    Plenty of people think we didn't.   Should we  "teach the controversy"  then?

ID can be studied through math?  You are not referring to Dembski's "Law" are you?  That has been disproven by mathematicians.   His "Law" is something he made up and never provided adequate proof for.   I can make up a "Law" and show logic from that point, it doesn't mean what I am doing is either scientifically or mathematically sound.

If the base premise is 2+2=5, then all your work from that point on is suspect.

Quoted: Quoted: because science is about proximate causes.   The first cause is something that religion and philosophy concern themselves with. And I am entirerly in support of bringing back philosophy to the school rooms. Would you be against this? Not at all, in philosophy class.    I also have no problem with explaining in science class that science hasn't explained all things and some things are still open for question and beliefs vary.   If all that you want is melding of science with religous belief, then why not go with theistic evolution? This is a mistep on your part. The whole point is that ID need not have any connection to religion. It is metaphysical, not religious. If you are against the teaching of metaphysics then you could not teach anything about inalienable rights as their premise is metaphysical.   metaphysics shouldn't be taught as science.    If we allow that we need to allow the teaching of astrology and tarot reading in science class as well.  If you want to pretend ID doesn't have a religious basis, that is your problem, not mine.    Its proponents have admitted (in print, on the stand, and in lectures given to Christian audiences) that the purpose is religious in nature.   Why the need to invent a pseudo-scientific theory that amounts to nothing more than an attack on evolution? IS not every theory an attack on the legitimacy of another?   actually most theories expand knowledge, they don't try to turn back the clock and return us to pre-enlightenment times.   If evoluton is ever replaced it will be replaced by a better scientific theory.   Not a metaphysical argument which can't be tested.   The funny part is, ID will only strengthen evolutionary science.    By pointing out the holes in the theory, IDers are forcing scientists to strengthen the very thing IDers want torn down.  If we are really lucky those scientists  might actually find a problem and it would  result in an actual shift in evolutionary theory.   So again how can you be against it?  I'm not against ID per se, I'm against children being taught that ID is science.

btw you STILL didn't answer my question about theistic evolution.    How does ID explain things better metaphysically than theistic evolution.

Is it impossible that God would have arranged things in the natural world to foster life and allow it to evolve?  

Evolution is the teaching of Intelligent Design

Quoted:
 Not at all, in philosophy class.    I also have no problem with explaining in science class that science hasn't explained all things and some things are still open for question and beliefs vary.  
But it is impossible to pretend that there is no overlapping. Introducing metaphysical principles in science and scientific theorys in philosophy can only lead to better science and philosophy. Ethics is primarliy metaphysical and the Nazis rather demonstrated the madness of science devoid of ethics.

metaphysics shouldn't be taught as science.
Metaphysics is a science. Just because it cannot be observed in a petri dish does not change that fact.

If we allow that we need to allow the teaching of astrology and tarot reading in science class as well.  If you want to pretend ID doesn't have a religious basis, that is your problem, not mine.    Its proponents have admitted (in print, on the stand, and in lectures given to Christian audiences) that the purpose is religious in nature.  
That is simply not so. Many have. Many have not.

  actually most theories expand knowledge, they don't try to turn back the clock and return us to pre-enlightenment times.   If evoluton is ever replaced it will be replaced by a better scientific theory.   Not a metaphysical argument which can't be tested.  
The fact of the matter is that there is a chance that there does exist an Intelligent Designer. In no way has science dissproven this. And as the article points out metaphysical arguments can in fact be tested, just not in a test tube.

 I'm not against ID per se, I'm against children being taught that ID is science.  
Again, in keeping with the "math, physics, metaphysics" tradition that goes back thousands of years I will continue to hold all three to be areas of scientific study until science proves one or another is not.

btw you STILL didn't answer my question about theistic evolution.    How does ID explain things better metaphysically than theistic evolution.
Who said it had to? Let the mathematicians, the metaphysicians, the theologins, the physicists, and the philosophers all contribute to the search for the first principles of all things. How can one explain movement outside of an unmoved mover?

Is it impossible that God would have arranged things in the natural world to foster life and allow it to evolve?  
Yes, and I am all for that line you just wrote being in text books. Would you be against it? Again I point out that without metaphysical realtiy there is no inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

In the end my argument lies with this, that it can do no harm and indeed result in much good, to expose kids in school to the very debate going on between us.

Quoted: Evolution is the teaching of Intelligent Design

yup, which is why I find ID as a solution w/o a problem

Quoted: Quoted:  Not at all, in philosophy class.    I also have no problem with explaining in science class that science hasn't explained all things and some things are still open for question and beliefs vary.   But it is impossible to pretend that there is no overlapping. Introducing metaphysical principles in science and scientific theorys in philosophy can only lead to better science and philosophy. Ethics is primarliy metaphysical and the Nazis rather demonstrated the madness of science devoid of ethics.

Of course there is overlap.   Origin stories for instance.    Ethical considerations in science like whether to clone human beings is another.  The solution has been that they complement each other.   ID seeks to overturn science on metaphysical/religous grounds, which is as foolish as those who seek to overturn religion based on scientific grounds.  Using origin stories from any religion to try and disprove evolution is as foolish as using evolution to prove God doesn't exist.  

Quoted: Quoted: metaphysics shouldn't be taught as science. Metaphysics is a science. Just because it cannot be observed in a petri dish does not change that fact.

Metaphysics is not now, nor has it ever been a science in the modern sense of the word.   At one time alchemy was considered a science, but it is not a science in the way we use the word today.  
he term metaphysics originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that came after his writings on physics, in the arrangement made by Andronicus of Rhodes about three centuries after Aristotle's death.

Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be like in order to be at all.   It is used in popular culture to refer to many different forms of occultism and mysiticism.

Quoted: Quoted: If we allow that we need to allow the teaching of astrology and tarot reading in science class as well.  If you want to pretend ID doesn't have a religious basis, that is your problem, not mine.    Its proponents have admitted (in print, on the stand, and in lectures given to Christian audiences) that the purpose is religious in nature.   That is simply not so. Many have. Many have not.

Many (as in the ones who have the scientific credentials and have written the influential books) have done so.   Just as I said.  

The brief from the trial has example after example.    If you want ID to be viewed as legitimate, you need to ditch the dishonest people  who have conspired to use ID to further their own agendas.  

Quoted: Quoted:   actually most theories expand knowledge, they don't try to turn back the clock and return us to pre-enlightenment times.   If evoluton is ever replaced it will be replaced by a better scientific theory.   Not a metaphysical argument which can't be tested.   The fact of the matter is that there is a chance that there does exist an Intelligent Designer. In no way has science dissproven this. And as the article points out metaphysical arguments can in fact be tested, just not in a test tube.

Noone can prove or disprove a designer.  That is why its metaphysics/philosophy/religion and NOT science.   The only thing we can prove  is that evolution is false.  We can't ever know 100% it is true.        So far, noone has been able to prove evolution is false  

Quoted: Quoted:  I'm not against ID per se, I'm against children being taught that ID is science.   Again, in keeping with the "math, physics, metaphysics" tradition that goes back thousands of years I will continue to hold all three to be areas of scientific study until science proves one or another is not.

You are more than welcome to do that, but that doesn't change the fact that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy not science.    If we put metaphysics in the field of science we have to add phrenology, astrology, tarot reading, etc...  in as well.  

Quoted: Quoted: btw you STILL didn't answer my question about theistic evolution.    How does ID explain things better metaphysically than theistic evolution. Who said it had to? Let the mathematicians, the metaphysicians, the theologins, the physicists, and the philosophers all contribute to the search for the first principles of all things. How can one explain movement outside of an unmoved mover?

The vast majority of mathemeticians and physicist realize that the first cause is not something we can ever find due the limits of scientific knowledge.   If we found the first cause, we would never be able to prove it.   Your question is based on the theory that all things must have a creator, which begs the question of what created the creator.  

Your argument trying to tie metaphysics to the right to keep and bear arms is foolish.    People have been defending themselves with weapons since the first pre-human ancestor picked up a rock and bashed in the skull of his attacker.   That right existed before we had the word metaphysics.    We invented metaphyisics to logically explain self-evident things.   In some cases are explanations were a bit off and later we invented science to explain things we can investigate.   We still need philosophy and/or religion for the things that are outside the realm of science.

Quoted: Quoted: Is it impossible that God would have arranged things in the natural world to foster life and allow it to evolve?   Yes, and I am all for that line you just wrote being in text books. Would you be against it? Again I point out that without metaphysical realtiy there is no inalienable right to keep and bear arms. In the end my argument lies with this, that it can do no harm and indeed result in much good, to expose kids in school to the very debate going on between us.

That statement would be fine in a textbook on philosophy or a course on the conflict between religion and science.  It does not belong in a textbook on science.  

What is amusing is that our current form of natural science was brought about by religious people who believe God was smart enough to set up natural systems and didn't design a universe that required constant intervention.   Every scientific theory fails to mention God, but if God exists, every scientific theory explains a reality God created.   Yet it is only evolution that is attacked for being somehow anti-God.

Quoted: Quoted: Evolution is the teaching of Intelligent Design yup, which is why I find ID as a solution w/o a problem

Exactly, why some people deny the gift of science which God has given us is beyond me.

It's kind of like saying that God made us too stupid to understand our own world.

Quoted:
 Of course there is overlap.   Origin stories for instance.    Ethical considerations in science like whether to clone human beings is another.  The solution has been that they complement each other.   ID seeks to overturn science on metaphysical/religous grounds, which is as foolish as those who seek to overturn religion based on scientific grounds.  
Not at all. The fact that some may be using ID to "overturn science" does not mean it is a universal. If in fact ID is legitimate then it can be a legitimate area of scientific study.  

Metaphysics is not now, nor has it ever been a science in the modern sense of the word.  
Well yes but "science" was not science in the modern sense of the word until recently.

Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible.
Which is quite a bit more "scientific" than tarrot reading.


If you want ID to be viewed as legitimate, you need to ditch the dishonest people  who have conspired to use ID to further their own agendas.
Other than simply ignoring them how do you suppose one do this?

The vast majority of mathemeticians and physicist realize that the first cause is not something we can ever find due the limits of scientific knowledge.   If we found the first cause, we would never be able to prove it.  
And the vast majority of science at one time held the earth to be the center of the universe. It may be the case that a unified theory of everytyhing is beyond human grasp, or not.  It is all abstraction, perhaps it is possible after all.


Your argument trying to tie metaphysics to the right to keep and bear arms is foolish.    People have been defending themselves with weapons since the first pre-human ancestor picked up a rock and bashed in the skull of his attacker.
Which has nothing at all to do with the metaphysical notion/principle of inalienable rights.

That right existed before we had the word metaphysics.
But it is only becase of metaphysics that we came to understand that not only is it a right, but that it could not be so without metaphysical reality.

We invented metaphyisics to logically explain self-evident things.
Carefull there, we did not invent inalienable rights or the metaphysical principles that must exist for them to. Without immaterial reality there can be no such thing as inalienable.

That statement would be fine in a textbook on philosophy or a course on the conflict between religion and science.  It does not belong in a textbook on science.  
Where it does belong is in the classrooms of every school.

Quoted: We invented metaphyisics to logically explain self-evident things. Carefull there, we did not invent inalienable rights or the metaphysical principles that must exist for them to. Without immaterial reality there can be no such thing as inalienable.

The only unalienable right is the pursuit of happiness.  Noone can stop you from trying to be happy, although that doesn't necessarily imply you will reach your goal.  They can kill you, imprison you, or take your property.  It happens every day in America.

The concept of an unalienable right is utopian.  It does not reflect reality.    That we come as close we do is near miraculous.    

I accept those concepts on faith, not because they are provable or supportable with evidence.    Whether we have unalienable rights is immaterial to me.   I believe we should and that is enough for me.

You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the physical and the metaphysical.  

The metaphysical has no provable reality and it falls to us to make it real with our faith and/or our actions.

 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Evolution is the teaching of Intelligent Design yup, which is why I find ID as a solution w/o a problem Exactly, why some people deny the gift of science which God has given us is beyond me. It's kind of like saying that God made us too stupid to understand our own world.

He might have done just that.

On the other hand, he might not.

Quoted: Quoted: We invented metaphyisics to logically explain self-evident things. Carefull there, we did not invent inalienable rights or the metaphysical principles that must exist for them to. Without immaterial reality there can be no such thing as inalienable. The only unalienable right is the pursuit of happiness.  Noone can stop you from trying to be happy, although that doesn't necessarily imply you will reach your goal.  They can kill you, imprison you, or take your property.  It happens every day in America. The concept of an unalienable right is utopian.  It does not reflect reality.    That we come as close we do is near miraculous.     I accept those concepts on faith, not because they are provable or supportable with evidence.    Whether we have unalienable rights is immaterial to me.   I believe we should and that is enough for me. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the physical and the metaphysical.   The metaphysical has no provable reality and it falls to us to make it real with our faith and/or our actions.

I have no problem differentiating between physical and metaphysical in the same way I have no problem differentiating between biology and mathematics. I accept the existence of both material and immaterial realtiy. And denying someone their inalienable rights does not in any way deny the existence of these rights. If someone takes away your guns, or your life, do you still have a right to them? Yes, even if they have been taken from you. And it is only in metaphysics that this "yes" can be found and defended. The Founders knew that it would be nothing but nonsensical untenable gibberish to suppose inalienable rights without a Creator.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We invented metaphyisics to logically explain self-evident things. Carefull there, we did not invent inalienable rights or the metaphysical principles that must exist for them to. Without immaterial reality there can be no such thing as inalienable. The only unalienable right is the pursuit of happiness.  Noone can stop you from trying to be happy, although that doesn't necessarily imply you will reach your goal.  They can kill you, imprison you, or take your property.  It happens every day in America. The concept of an unalienable right is utopian.  It does not reflect reality.    That we come as close we do is near miraculous.     I accept those concepts on faith, not because they are provable or supportable with evidence.    Whether we have unalienable rights is immaterial to me.   I believe we should and that is enough for me. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the physical and the metaphysical.   The metaphysical has no provable reality and it falls to us to make it real with our faith and/or our actions. I have no problem differentiating between physical and metaphysical in the same way I have no problem differentiating between biology and mathematics. I accept the existence of both material and immaterial realtiy. And denying someone their inalienable rights does not in any way deny the existence of these rights. If someone takes away your guns, or your life, do you still have a right to them? Yes, even if they have been taken from you. And it is only in metaphysics that this "yes" can be found and defended. The Founders knew that it would be nothing but nonsensical untenable gibberish to suppose inalienable rights without a Creator.

Some view it as nonsensical untenable gibberish to suppose  a Creator exists.

You can have faith in a creator god who gave us unalienable rights or you can have faith that those rights are there by nature (or Nature if you wish) of our very existence.

Both are faith positions,   to call one "nonsensical untenable gibberish" is to call them both "nonsensical untenable gibberish"

You can have faith in things besides God.    There are entire faith systems that don't require belief in  God.

Quoted: He might have done just that. On the other hand, he might not.

What do you think the tree of knowledge was?

Quoted:

Some view it as nonsensical untenable gibberish to suppose  a Creator exists.
Yeah, but they're  just loopy.

You can have faith in a creator god who gave us unalienable rights or you can have faith that those rights are there by nature (or Nature if you wish) of our very existence.
If there is nothing higher then ourselves then "inalienable" is rendered simply an idea, or ideal, no more.

Both are faith positions,   to call one "nonsensical untenable gibberish" is to call them both "nonsensical untenable gibberish"
In your opinion. One that is not shared by the Founders or those men who they themselves studied and borrowed from.

You can have faith in things besides God.    There are entire faith systems that don't require belief in  God.
I can think of two off hand, fascism and communism.

Quoted: Quoted: He might have done just that. On the other hand, he might not. What do you think the tree of knowledge was?

Theology is not my thing.

The question I'm asking is if the human brain can fully understand the mechanisms of another human brain.  Do you run into any Turing/Godelian issues there?

If so, there is probably a limit to what humans can understand about the universe.

Yet another blue-sky question.

Quoted: Quoted: Some view it as nonsensical untenable gibberish to suppose  a Creator exists. Yeah, but they're  just loopy. You can have faith in a creator god who gave us unalienable rights or you can have faith that those rights are there by nature (or Nature if you wish) of our very existence. If there is nothing higher then ourselves then "inalienable" is rendered simply an idea, or ideal, no more. Both are faith positions,   to call one "nonsensical untenable gibberish" is to call them both "nonsensical untenable gibberish" In your opinion. One that is not shared by the Founders or those men who they themselves studied and borrowed from. You can have faith in things besides God.    There are entire faith systems that don't require belief in  God. I can think of two off hand, fascism and communism.

Funny you should mention those.  Fascism has a history in Rome IIRC.   Lots of Catholic Fascists in Italy, Spain, and Germany at one time...

 



I was thinking more along the lines of religions like

Buddhism
Taoism
Unitarian Universalism

none of them require belief in a deity, all our compatible with belief in a deity.

ID rates near Scientology on the validity scale.

Quoted: ID rates near Scientology on the validity scale.

No, no it does not.  Only an intelligent designer can create intelligence.

Quoted: Quoted: ID rates near Scientology on the validity scale. No, no it does not.  Only an intelligent designer can create intelligence.

That is an un-testable tautology and lacks any relevant explanatory power.    It also leads to the question of what created the intelligent designer, and what created the designer's designer, etc...

That is why science takes a naturalistic worldview.  If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ID rates near Scientology on the validity scale. No, no it does not.  Only an intelligent designer can create intelligence. That is an un-testable tautology and lacks any relevant explanatory power.    It also leads to the question of what created the intelligent designer, and what created the designer's designer, etc... That is why science takes a naturalistic worldview.  If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science.

I agree with you concerning science, and do not know the answer to your other questions, nor do I think it is neccessary to know at this time.  As a Christian we are taught to follow God, no where does it hint (in the Bible) to what may or may not be the creator of God.  It is my understand that is only knowledge God Himself is privy too, and maybe we will know more when we enter heaven.  

I can go on about this subject but it would begin to start sounding kind of wierd and I don't want to hi-jack this thread.



PS  Btw, you're highly intellegent reply validates my theory that an Inteligent Designer is needed to create intelligence.

Quoted: PS  Btw, you're highly intellegent reply validates my theory that an Inteligent Designer is needed to create intelligence.

I think what he means, is that it has to stop somewhere.  Eventually one of these intelligent designers had to have not been created by someone.  So if that is possible for one of the designers to be intelligent and not have been created by someone, then who's to say that WE were even created by anyone?

Quoted:   If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science.

That's actually not correct.

Quoted: Quoted:   If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science. That's actually not correct.

Funny, they teach it all over.  Its something called the scientific method, perhaps you should look it up.

You're the guy who said metaphysics was a branch of science.   You have no clue of what you speak.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:   If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science. That's actually not correct. Funny, they teach it all over.  Its something called the scientific method, perhaps you should look it up. You're the guy who said metaphysics was a branch of science.   You have no clue of what you speak.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory



In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws.

Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:   If a theory can't make testable predictions, then it isn't science. That's actually not correct. Funny, they teach it all over.  Its something called the scientific method, perhaps you should look it up. You're the guy who said metaphysics was a branch of science.   You have no clue of what you speak.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening. In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

thanks for posting that, but I doubt it will make a dent

Still a Designer however.

Quoted: Still a Designer however.

so you believe

I'm not saying there isn't one.  I just say I don't believe there is one.  

Its the difference between what I can prove and what I believe to be true.

Quoted: Quoted: Still a Designer however. so you believe I'm not saying there isn't one.  I just say I don't believe there is one.   Its the difference between what I can prove and what I believe to be true.

Really now?

Are you willing to apply scientific principles to your beliefs?

What about a test of my beliefs (Christian)?

A test that can predict spirtual results inside a logical framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon.

Prayer can be the test subject.

What do you say?

You up to it?

If a model cannot be tested at all, then it's a fairly useless model.

We have to take into account that we might not be able to comprehend an intelligent designer.  We might not even be able to determine if there is one or not.

It might be the case that nothing we can ever do can answer this question.

Certainly there is nothing that can be called evidence that supports either side.  At the most, we can narrow the possibilities only.

All anyone has at this point is faith.

Quoted: Certainly there is nothing that can be called evidence that supports either side.  At the most, we can narrow the possibilities only. All anyone has at this point is faith.

Sure there is .....prayer (and meditation) can be measured.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Still a Designer however. so you believe I'm not saying there isn't one.  I just say I don't believe there is one.   Its the difference between what I can prove and what I believe to be true. Really now? Are you willing to apply scientific principles to your beliefs? What about a test of my beliefs (Christian)? A test that can predict spirtual results inside a logical framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Prayer can be the test subject. What do you say? You up to it?

You make the assumption that the results are spiritual.    First you would have to prove the spirit world exists (which btw, it outside of science as well)

Prayer is an interesting subject because non-theistic religions also use prayer, and have the same results as theistic religions.    Either God answers all prayers (not a scientific answer) or there is an actual physical explanation of why prayer has an effect.

New scientist had an interesting article recently 13 Things that don't make sense

#1 was the placebo effect....

Start a new thread if you want and we can discuss.   Heading to bed for now :)

Happy New Year!

Quoted: You make the assumption that the results are spiritual.    First you would have to prove the spirit world exists (which btw, it outside of science as well)

Actually, it was the results of my own personal testing based on what I observed others doing that  gave me my conclusions that it is spirituality.

Prayer is an interesting subject because non-theistic religions also use prayer, and have the same results as theistic religions.    Either God answers all prayers (not a scientific answer) or there is an actual physical explanation of why prayer has an effect.

Yes God answers all prayers, how He does so i do not know.  But I think He talks to people in ways they can understand him.  And any action of God on this planet cn be explained by physical laws and science, but that does not change the fact it is God's work since it was God Himself that defined the sciences.

New scientist had an interesting article recently 13 Things that don't make sense #1 was the placebo effect.... Start a new thread if you want and we can discuss.   Heading to bed for now :) Happy New Year!

Happy New Year.

I enjoy your posts  

Quoted: Quoted: Certainly there is nothing that can be called evidence that supports either side.  At the most, we can narrow the possibilities only. All anyone has at this point is faith. Sure there is .....prayer (and meditation) can be measured.  hr

If you can conduct a proper experiment using current accepted methodologies in use in the social sciences, then do so and post your results.

At that point, we'll have something concrete to discuss.  The "you know there is a God because you can feel it" argument is not scientific.  Give me numbers.  I'm eagerly awaiting your methodology and results.

DarkHalf,
 thought you might find my old thread on prayer interesting.  

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=135&t=399177