'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.

Good old Copper Knickers, totally undermining the idea of Faith.

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). ;)

:D

http://www.webmarkkinat.com/hoopee/a...ion_lippu2.jpg

...so hooray for me and f*ck you!!!

Yeah, that's pretty much it. He's right that the world is beautiful, astounding and complex - but the arguments he's put forward stating evolution couldn't have created the phenomenon he's focused on have actually been proven to be flawed on numerous occasions. He has prompted some very funky further research into the gob-smacking complexities of the world tho :). God-guided world or Godless, it's still amazing :yup:

Intelligent Design theories posit that because nature is so complex it must have been designed by a Creator of some sort or another.

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.

Absolutely. The problem is that, at the moment, testable hypothesis and untestable beliefs have to be kept apart. They're two schools of thought that have trouble inter-mingling. Creationism etc should definitely be taught - but not in science classes - in Religious Education classes instead (I had no idea you guys didn't have these incidently.)

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 ;).

:)

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 :).

Wait, are you offended? (If so, wanna explain why?). Or is that just some obscure music reference?

I don't see how you got that from this:
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

________________________________________

This is exactly what I think. Also, in this country, because there is such a divide between the two (or three) schools of thought, things have become very polarized. There are people lobbying to have Creationism taught in schools now, because it's basically verboten to mention it in public schools as it is. Which is crazy and pointlessly divisive given how many people believe in it. If for no other reason than to know what so many other people think, it should be presented.

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.

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.

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?

Is your name "Tacitus"? ;)


Here, we totally agree.



Yeah, that's why I used the term "presented". Theories can be discussed and shown to be flawed without extending that "flawed" label to those who advanced the theory. That's one of the really important distinctions that is being lost, actually: both sides are resorting to ad hominem attacks, which only widens the gap politically.

Whoops :rolleyes:

It's a shame, tis true. These type of clashes normally do force people further into their respective corners.

Education about any type of history is okay by me, but i think it should also be a choice not a requirement. "All-Inclusive" is not really a good term however as I think it would be impossible to achieve. I have a philosophy degree and without learning about religion I probably would be a few dozens credits short. Knowldge even if it is about things we do not belive in is what helps us understand each other and ourselves better. 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.

Yeah, that's the kind of deal we have going over here. They teach the 'history' of religious beliefs alone [a good way of putting it :)]. (By 'all-inclusive' i just meant that the classes should cover all faiths - altho i recognise it could all get a bit tricky)

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 ;)).

Wouldnt it be grand if everything worked that way?

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.

Heheheh. Yeah, i recognize that's not the way these things often pan out - but within the confines of a school curriculum, you could at least ensure that the school material was respectful and constructive of each religion in turn (that way, any damage that might be done by mis-representations/biases of the teacher could be limited).

Oh absolutely. And worse (one of the worst dogmas that can persist amongst 'extremist' science advocates is the idea that they themselves are free of insubstantiated 'belief' - and indeed, that that's a good thing ;)).

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:

So is your Avatar Nebby, ouch, my conscience-nun just smacked my in the back of the head with a yard stick.

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.

I would agree, but fortunately I have not seen evidence of that, at least locally. What we also have to realize is that at a young age children have yet to form their own solid opions about things, religion included. Oh they can be biased due to parents beliefs and how they have been raised, but as I said before it is human nature to ask for proof or to quetion what one cannot see. So I think these classes should be given at the High School level and not before. Just IMO anyway.

Not a bad idea :yup:

Well, this particular discussion, about Inreducible Complexity, is probably too hard for young kids to understand before High School. But I don't see anything wrong with having education about Religion before that. Kids should know about different belief systems, and especially that there are more than one belief system.

I guess one of the things 7 is saying is that once you introduce those religions to young kids they'll wanna know 'why' - They'll wanna know which is right etc. Which could be kinda problematic. You either go for relativism and say none is right (and a lot of parents wouldn't want ultimate relativism being taught ;) - especially not about religion) - or you takes sides.

Personally, i'm happy that a teacher impressed upon me and my fellow class of 9-year-olds (on his leaving day) his belief that all religions were like people looking at the same mountain from different angles. I liked that one :).

At my school RE classes didn't really start until we were 13 or so tho, i think. That could be about the right sort of age - a good time to start sliding into to taking responsibility for what you think.

Didn't read it like that at all. Reading the Bible doesn't teach one Faith, but as Shiny Boxers says, the nuts and bolts of how to find it. The Heavens were created, according to the Large Book, in 6 days by the big fella himself. To believe that requires a large degree of Faith.

Maybe he didn't read the intro and rushed straight through to all the 'begat-ing'. Saucy devil... ;)

But that would be the absolutly wrong way of doing it. Look at it as you do with History, which is kind of what religion is anyway. History revisionists are at work constantly, for good and for worse. It's important for kids to understand where all kinds of traditions and values come from. And it's very important that they understand that Christianity, Judaism and Islam share the same foundations. There must be tons of kids wondering what the hell the difference is between Patrick who's a catholic and Liza who's a protestant and Jeff who's jewish and so on.... Why not teach them early on? If done the right way I don't see why religion is more problematic than history or any other class in school. On the contrary, I think it prevents future prejudice. I don't think that Religion class should be about "how to get close to God" but about the people, the traditions, the history and the heritage that all the different religions bring with themselves. I think kids are interested in that stuff. I certainly was when I was in school. Actually a lot more than I was in Science classes. ;)

Well... yes, what it says is that God made the heavens and Earth and all that are in them in 7 days. It just gets a little fuzzy about whose days we're talking about, and if it's God's days, how long are those?

However bloomin' well long he likes? :)

Are you sure about this? I am not sure if my thoughts are correct on this, but I do no say what I do without experience. More on this tommorow. I repect you opinion, but I am not so sure about it.:)

Science and religion will most likely never work out together. Just one of those things that just won't work out. Thanks to the Internet and it's infinite source of information, I've shaped a whole new outlook on everything. Of course, I've had to take a lot of crap on it lately. And people call em friends. Ha! I've got only a small idea of what it feels like to be the minority, and I don't like it. :nope:

I think Science and Religion MUST work things out. Yes, it's the ultimate romantic conflict: head vs heart and all that. But the undeniable fact is: we're here. And the other undeniable fact is: we want a purpose for being here. So... try as they might to undo each other, eventually, marriage is inevitable.

God I love you................but not in that icckkyy way, more so in that respectable way;)

hee! :D

I didn't mean that kids waiting until high school with all this religion business is absolutely wrong. What I meant was that either taking a stand for one side or saying that none is right was the wrong thing to do.

'Intelligent Design' = 'Bad Religion' vs. 'I don't give a chit.'

Jesus doesn't pay the mortgage, aliens don't do the yardwork, and quantum mechanics don't help me at my job.

Sorry, I got to much real life going on to worry about things that don't exist or aren't helping me.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Bad Religion
Hooray For Me...


I can see my teenage father standing straight on a desolate corner,
in the shadow of tentacled towers by the red light of America,
I imagine how his mother felt when she heard that her husband was dying,
and that underground heroes of the tarmac shooting smack were blowing up worlds
and damned out loud, hey, can you tell me how does it feel?

yeah, tell me, can you imagine, for a second,
doing anything that you don't have to?
well, that's what I'm accustomed to so hooray for me
and **** you

when I slept with stony faces on the riverbank,
my angeldevil reveller shook me desperately in dying,
I don't exactly want to apologize for anything, and now
we're all mad and tangled in secret rooms with roman candles,
on an endless graveyard train

yeah, tell me, can you imagine, for a second, doing
anything just 'cuz you want to?
well, that's just what I do so hooray for me
and **** you

yeah, I was dreaming through the "howzlife", yawning,
car black, when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever..",
and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme,
for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence

oh, yeah, I'm not respectable, and never sensible,
I've been incredible so damned irascible
and I like the things I do so hooray for me
and **** you

Hey man, quantum theory led to computers, religion can help you when you're down, and what happens now affects how the future will be.

Oh yeah, and God gave rock and roll to you :p

That makes a lot of my life a waste of time, damn I knew I should have worshipped the biscuit God, least you can eat it.

Maybe science would take religion more seriously if it stoped contridicting itself, and stop thinking evolution is impossible yet believe a god made 2 people out of mud and a rib bone which spawned millions of people, earth got flooded and everybody died then got repopulated by incest and dinosours were on the ark, but also fossils were put on earth to test our faith at the same time?
Secondly if differnt religions can't even get on how can science and religion?
Thirdly who made this new version of evolution? Is it purely christians or did all religious groups come together? Or scientists of various faith?
I'll stick to science and facts thanks.

Well, certainly, it's fact-denying Creationist-style beliefs that wind scientist up the most. (Personally i really can't believe those surveys that suggest over 50% of Americans believe in Creationism. At least, i don't want to believe them... ;))

It's a small minority of Christians i believe [and an even smaller minority of scientists ;)]. And it's not even a new 'version' - that's its problem. Intelligent Design is really just an unprovable assertion that God made everything. (The 'Irreducible Complexity' theory has got a bit of science about it, but really starts to unravel when used to try and prove the existence of a Creator etc)

From what I've heard, Islam teaches that sections in the Koran like the creation stories should be taken as analogy not fact. That's why there's been no real anti-Evolution movement amongst Muslims.

If you wanna hint about how this type of science-ignoring Christianity is by no means the majority-view, check this quote out:

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be."
--The Vatican's chief astronomer George Coyne (ABCNews.go.com, 18 November)

Firstly, you might be surprised to learn that I don't support teaching ID as a science.

Secondly, I think the theory of evolution says a lot less than people actually ascribe to it.

Lastly, hi Golgot.

Pre-Darwin, science and religion weren't in such conflict. Newton was very religious and thought his science was a method for showing the hand of God. Even Copernicus and Galileo who stood the comfortable Aristotlian model of an earth centered universe on its' head, were religious men.

Science is not all head and religion is not all heart. :D Many scientists feel very passionate and in awe of the universe they study and portions of religion have been cold and unfeeling. Neither belong exclusively to head or heart.

Perhaps most of us demand a purpose, I don't. As far as I can tell, the purpose of life is to survive and procreate. Everything else is filler. But what marvelous filler it is! :D

Toose, you old sack of ****! How the hell are you? I have truly missed you!

I love you too, pipsqueak!

I'm good, been well, missed debating with you all. I've decided to haunt these halls on a more regular basis as, clearly, you need me.

Wow, howdy Toose. Long time no type!

Hello Sedai, keeping those guns polished? :)

I have been muttering in a corner without your guidence toose, welcome back.

As always. :) How have you been? Will we see you back around more, now? Just stopping in to say hi?

I'm thinking I'll hang around if no one strenuously objects (name that movie).

I got all sentimental for Chris's snowflakes and for some good debate.

Tea Barking, together we shall forge new pathways!

Firstly, you got those in the wrong order.

Secondly, yeah, i think most everyone carries different ideas of evolution round in their head (and many of those ideas are just flights of fancy or convenient stories).

Lastly, i got that in the wrong order too. Howdy partner :). How's life been treating you? ;)

To be perfectly honest..... Yes. I even crave you. :kiss:

Thanks :blush: Nice to have you back Sir http://bestsmileys.com/kissing1/19.gif

Now, let's get to the wording of your thread. Why do you think ID bad religion? It is bad science as it lacks a testable hypothesis but how is it different from a religious standpoint than religion historically?

Personally, I think ID has some interesting logical arguments though they are, admittedly, not science.

What truly does stand out is that neither modern science nor evolution (as in the theory of) can point out exactly what 'life' is and how it started.

If one were to be perfectly pragmatic about evolutionary theory then one could look at the fossil record and document biological changes over time and that is really it. People take that in many directions and very few of those are based in science. Some would believe it makes monkeys into men and some believe that it's all part of a greater design that we, as of now, are too short sighted to see.

So, how is ID bad religion? Are you saying that it gives the religiously bent false evidence?

The major ID proponents seem to be more interested in 'combating' the areas of science they disagree with, rather than 'questioning' them in a constructive way. That goes against what most Religions have spent most of their time doing - IE encouraging exploration of God's world etc. (Ignoring Copernicus etc, the Church's track record on promoting science is pretty damned good, and the same goes for other religions).

My idea of a good religion is one that doesn't try and deny inconvenient scientific discoveries - but helps figure out how they can be morally incorporated into the world instead.

I think the Irreducible Complexity theory is doing science a service in that it tries to tackle one of the many 'gaps' in evolution theory (and forces science to focus on that gap).

And i ain't got a problem with the idea of there being a Creator. Just don't think it's proveable tho.

Sure, but if anyone's going to get someway towards an accurate 'answer', it's gonna be them ;). (On how life started anyway. What life is... well, everyone can contribute to that one i guess :)).

Well, there's more than just the fossil record out there. DNA mutation-rates in mitochondria etc have also been used to trace developmental changes, for example (tho, like carbon-dating, i don't think it's quite as water-tight as its proponents would like it to be). Evolution isn't just a one trick pony when it comes to evidence tho.

But you're right, there are still gaps. And you're right that it can't be demonstrated absolutely conclusively that we evolved from apes (altho if you don't believe that your only other alternative, given the wealth of suggestive evidence, is to assume that we just popped into existence suddenly. And that we just happen to be damn similar to apes ;)).

And btw, athiest-scientists and ID-supporters both believe there's a 'greater design' to life. It's just that the former think it's a self-generating design, while the latter attribute it to a designer. Nigh on all of them venerate the fact that we could never encompass nor understand it all. (and the ones who think they do, well, they're just nuts ;)).

Erm, i'd say it gives 'em no evidence at all ;). What makes it 'bad religion' for me is when it tries to impede science, rather than work with it.

If there truly is an ongoing evolution of man then I believe part of it will involve coming to a state of understanding with our origins. I'm not sure we're equipped to deal with it now but eventually we will be.

And yes, there are many self-convinced nuts out there.

I believe we have reached an accord. Which one of us has become more open minded?

I've no idea. All i know is that Roger Moore doesn't seem convinced by either of us. There's always one isn't there ;).

Glad we could reach an accord oh fiery one :). (And so quickly too. Took all the fun out of it ;)).

I'd have to thank my parents for the best thing they've ever done by me. That is not forcing any type of religion on me. I picked my own and I'm not lying to myself and that's the greatest thing they've done. Oh, and may the Internet be praised also. Hehe. If more parents did what mine did, there would be a lot more understanding in the world. I truly believe that.