'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

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

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?

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

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.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

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).

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

...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

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?

________________________________________

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.

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.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

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

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.

Interesting stuff guys

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.