'Intelligent Design' = 'Bad Religion'?
...As opposed to bad science. Coz, well, that's pretty much a given ;).
....So.... Why do certain factions in the faith community feel they have to take on evolution in this tenuous way? Why can't they integrate science and faith - like the Church has done for most of its time? In short: why can't religion and science just get along? Science needs values to guide it. Religion must observe God's world to ascertain his Will. What's the deal? I still think integration is possible, but in the meantime... shouldn't we just accept that science can't encompass the infinite, and that religion can't ignore change? Eh? ;) Seeing as both sides are dead set on segregation tho, here's a practical thought |
I'm sure to sound like a bimbo saying this, but I'm not entirely clear on what ID is, and I don't much care. The bottom line is, we don't know for certain how we got here. Granted, Evolution is the best guess based on our observation, but it's still human observation using human-made tools - it's not definitive. And religion has some nice stories, but absolutely nothing concrete. So a battle between the two has long seemed pointless, from my admittedly agnostic point of view.
I like (and have suggested before) the notion of teaching all of it, and letting people decide to believe what they will. Realistically, they will anyway, so it's better if they do that from an educated seat than have all the tantalizing 'supression' of one or the other factored in. I heard a great quote attributed to Copernicus that I'd like to share: "The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens got here." Conversely, Science is constantly developing new and better ways to know what is going on, and to assume we have all the data needed to base a firm conclusion would be arrogantly silly. Neither side has proof, both sides recognise this... why the entrenchment? |
Well, I guess this is not a battle between Science and Religion, if we want to split hairs. It's rather a new type of Science, what some call pseudo-Science, that gives explanation to nature's complexity. That, in turn, leads Christians and others to believe that the conception of God creating and designing the universe can actually be scientifically proved. I guess some people believe that Religion has become too less involved in how we live our lives since science gives not only more convincing explanations but also more meritorious opportunities for both the individual and for society as a whole. Basically, we are losing God in our lives. As Sammy said, Science is using man-made tools to prove its points and here Religion has found another man-made tool to fight Science, and to fight Science on Science's terms. At least, that is what it is meant to look like.
Personally, I don't know that much about this to dismiss Inreducible Complexity objectively. But reading about Behe it mostly sounds like he thinks that what he sees in his microscope is too fascinating and too complex for him, with his splendid education, to accept the fact that it has evolved over time from a little ...eh... seed, or something. Then when you read the criticism of his work it feels pretty obvious to me that he simply hasn't looked hard enough, or he didn't want to look hard enough. I'm not someone who advocates silencing controversial opinions but it's difficult to decide where to discuss this issue. If you discuss it in Science class, then you're acknowleding this theory the status of Science, which I think would be a mistake. It's pretty obvious that religious teachers and others are using this as a political tool to give religion more room in schools. Perhaps, as that article said, it would be a good idea to have religious education classes in American schools as well. I think the kids are interested to here about this debate. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
I heard a great quote attributed to Copernicus that I'd like to share: "The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens got here."
I'm pretty sure I know how I got here though: the stork was on it's way to Barbados but sneezed over Belfast... As someone who was forced to teach RE in UK schools, Golgot's second link was spot on. I don't have any particular Faith myself but had no problem teaching Religious Education as all I was doing was expounding a number of viewpoints (hopefully in equal measure). ;) |
Originally Posted by Tacitus
I'm pretty sure I know how I got here though: the stork was on it's way to Barbados but sneezed over Belfast...
|
|
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Then when you read the criticism of his work it feels pretty obvious to me that he simply hasn't looked hard enough, or he didn't want to look hard enough.
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
I'm sure to sound like a bimbo saying this, but I'm not entirely clear on what ID is, and I don't much care. The bottom line is, we don't know for certain how we got here. Granted, Evolution is the best guess based on our observation, but it's still human observation using human-made tools - it's not definitive.
Science's ('evolving') discoveries in no way exclude that possibility, and never will - so the whole argument is pointless in the first place. The main problem with ID proponents is that they try and advance scientifically-flawed 'proofs' for a Creators existence, and insist that they are using the tools of science alone. On the whole, they're not. They're dressing up their beliefs in science-style clothes (they start with scientific criteria - but then refuse to build on valid criticisms of their work. They've already made up their mind. That's not how you get closer to solid 'truths' about the world). Science doesn't claim to be a perfect system, let alone definitive. But it does require some sort of testable hypothesis. That's the limitation it works within.
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
I like (and have suggested before) the notion of teaching all of it, and letting people decide to believe what they will. Realistically, they will anyway, so it's better if they do that from an educated seat than have all the tantalizing 'supression' of one or the other factored in.
I think the ID theory of 'irreducible design' deserves to get a look in in science classes - but certainly not as an 'equal' to evolution - more as an interesting theory that lead to even more interesting counter-evidence ;).
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
I heard a great quote attributed to Copernicus that I'd like to share: "The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens got here."
And there's the point. In many ways, science is about 'how', and religion is about 'why'. There's still cross-over amongst both practitioners though. We're all human after all :). I'd love to see the day when spiritualised-science and science-informed-faith were truly the norm :).
Originally Posted by Loner
...so hooray for me and f*ck you!!!
|
Originally Posted by Tacitus
Good old Copper Knickers, totally undermining the idea of Faith.
Originally Posted by me, quoting someone quoting Copernicus
"The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens got here."
________________________________________
Originally Posted by Golgot
...I think the ID theory of 'irreducible design' deserves to get a look in in science classes - but certainly not as an 'equal' to evolution - more as an interesting theory that lead to even more interesting counter-evidence .
When I was in 5th grade, we studied the Muslim faith. It was presented respectfully, and in some detail, yet not a single person converted. I really think the same would happen if we allowed these alternative theories to be presented, along with Evolution. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
It seems to me like he's giving Faith it's due, just not expanding that to cover examination of the physical world. Or were you just making a joke and I totally missed it? :o
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
When I was in 5th grade, we studied the Muslim faith. It was presented respectfully, and in some detail, yet not a single person converted.
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
I really think the same would happen if we allowed these alternative theories to be presented, along with Evolution.
|
It is easy for one to say “I believe in A, but I support or understand others beliefs in B, C, D, etc…” I am a firm believer in my convictions, and have come to accept that the practice of verbally conveying my thoughts to others who have not requested information or attend such events that they would be unable to complain about said “dogmatic” thoughts is considered rude, invading, presumptuous, and down right wrong. DO I think this is right? Deep down I think we, in America anyway, are so unsure about religion that anyone else who seems to be sure must be a fool. I would like to give an example of my thoughts: Let’s say a devout Christian firmly believes that he should spread the word of God to those who are in his mind “lost”. When he goes out and shouts on the street corner most look away, ignore him, tell him to shut up, etc… Rarely does this man get any accolades from anyone not sharing his beliefs. Most of us think that he does not deserve anything positive because he is trying to force his religion down our throats. We seem to think that our belief in being able to choose what we want to believe in is somehow more important to us than his belief to share his convictions. Now before I get blasted for preaching I am not, and I am not the guy on the street corner yelling at others that hey will go to Hell if they are not saved. Scare tactics rarely if ever work, so trust me I am not saying anyone is going to Hell for any reason. What I am however is a man who thinks others have the right to share what they firmly believe in their hearts to be true, be it religion, science, nature, supernatural, whatever. Sure we could argue that there is a place for such communication, but really other than church, conventions, or other such places where exactly is the “right” place. It is easy to stand in front of those who share your thoughts and talk about things you all relate to. In contrast if someone was yelling on the street corner promoting science we would probably assume they were spouting off about religion and not even listen or think they were more crazy than the preacher quoting scriptures, but I bet if we caught a taste of what he had to say we would listen. We want to have proof, it is human nature. I look at my children and know I have proof of something wonderful and a great gift that is life, wherever it came from.
|
So, d'you think nice, non-shoved-down-throat, all-inclusive 'Religious Education' classes would be a good thing or not then sir 7? Would you be happy for your kids to attend them?
|
Originally Posted by Golgot
Nah, i was agreeing with the quote. :)
Sure. All-encompassing Religious Education lessons, if handled fairly, definitely promote understanding and tolerance. It looks like it'd solve a lot of grief if they were to be introduced nationwide etc.
Well, the 'irreducible complexity' theory would never be taught entirely 'respectfully' in a science class, because of its inherent flaws (within that discipline). It could only really be used as an example of a failed theory. But there's still some worth in examining it in that light. It wouldn't be 'taught' as such, though.
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Is your name "Tacitus"? ;)
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
both sides are resorting to ad hominem attacks, which only widens the gap politically.
|
Originally Posted by Golgot
So, d'you think nice, non-shoved-down-throat, all-inclusive 'Religious Education' classes would be a good thing or not then sir 7? Would you be happy for your kids to attend them?
|
Originally Posted by 7thson
So sure it would be a good thing as long as it was taught as "History of Religions or beliefs", and not you should belive in this or go to Hell, Heaven, or dreamless sleep, etc... type thing.
The success of classes like that definitely depends on the teacher and the materials. I was pleasantly surprised by how a Protestant priest/teacher at a nominally-Christian school i attended dealt fairly and respectfully with other faiths in RE classes. I guess decent believers respect what's decent in other faiths etc :). (And besides, there were a load of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and even the odd Buddhist, in the class who could've set him straight if he strayed ;)). |
Originally Posted by Golgot
I guess decent believers respect what's decent in other faiths etc :).
I had the opportunity to attend a lecture Entitled: "The Science of Religion" given by one of our local Philosophy Professors back in the late eighties. It helped me see that just because something is scientifically proven does not mean it disproves any certain religious beliefs. Too many think that I believe. |
Originally Posted by 7thson
Wouldnt it be grand if everything worked that way?
Originally Posted by 7thson
I had the opportunity to attend a lecture Entitled: "The Science of Religion" given by one of our local Philosophy Professors back in the late eighties. It helped me see that just because something is scientifically proven does not mean it disproves any certain religious beliefs. Too many think that I believe.
That's one of the things i wanted this thread to touch on. The different realms of 'expertise' that religion and science move in - and how they could benefit from respecting each others' knowledge bases, rather than attacking them. :yup: |
Interesting stuff guys :yup:
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Interesting stuff guys :yup:
|
As I think I was trying to say in my earlier post here, I don't think the problem is that school kids learn about this stuff. What I would have a problem with is if it was being taught in Scinece class as "the opposite choice" to the Evolution theory. That would be unprofessional. But I think it would be great if the debate was picked up in Religious education class. If there is one, that is.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:16 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums