The typical thing about evolution scientists is their religious devotion to the theory. Peter Atkins: âa great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling elephants will in due course be found roaming through the countrysideâ (cited in Dawkins, 1986, p.14). The belief that molecules should have these capacities to compete and create is taken as granted and yet surely this is exactly where the debate lies. Commenting on this passage Brown says, âThe idea that a molecule might be capable of any of these activities is at least as mysterious as the doctrines of the trinity; yet it is offered as a sort of brusque common sense and demystificationâ (1999 p.190). At least the Intelligent Design propents know that they have some idealogical presuppositions. The evolutionists think they are objective.
I have to disagree, roberk-thats an interesting qoute from atkins, but i doubt very much its the approach of most in the feild. Science is about finding answers, to previously, presumably unknowable questions. Religion teaches specifically, those answers are "gods" work, not meant to be known or understood by common folk, and if you dare question this doctrine you will burn in some fiery furnace. The holy trinity is an obscure, unexplained, deliberately vague concept designed to limit comprehension, subjugate peoples minds, offering naught but a justification of other doctrine. It isnt mysterious at all, its just dogma for the sake of it, to prevent people thinking and asking questions.
There is no reason that I can think of to be closed minded to what we don't know. I don't want religion taught in school, but neither do I want children to be taught that religion is wrong, or is beneath a "reasonable person" etc. I can't understand the atheism of scientists at all. To me atheism is non scientific. If the scientists were agnositc, that would make more sense to me. It is one thing to say "I don't know. Quite another to say "I know God does not exist." I want people to be free to think for themselves, to learn to reach their own conclusions, and not to trade a theistic dogma a scientific dogma. I did not start the movement to teach ID in biology classes, but I do agree that there is a need to not have teachers push their atheistic or theistic thinking on any child. Teach facts of science that both a theist and atheist would agree on, but leave out the theory that God must be proved to a scientific certainty for God to exist. Again, this movement to teach ID is a reaction by people that wish to see their children go to school and not be at conflict with what they kids are taught at home by the parents. I support this to a great extent. The school systems are not a replacement for the home, and the beliefs that parents pass onto their children. When the child is old enough to think independently of both parents and teachers, then let them decide what to believe and what theory to embrace. I see the school system, the public school system as a means to teach the children how to think and not what to think. Teach them the nature of a theory, but don't elevate a theory to some higher status simply because a bunch of scientists are in love with it. Expose them to many different points of view, without endorsing any of them as necessary truths. That's why I prefer teaching only biological processes, facts of observation, not speculation of the existence of a designer or not. It is natural and reasonable for a child to ask why, and we must provide them answers to this question that are honest and keep them free to reach their own conclusions.
I have to disagree, roberk-thats an interesting qoute from atkins, but i doubt very much its the approach of most in the feild. Science is about finding answers, to previously, presumably unknowable questions. Religion teaches specifically, those answers are "gods" work, not meant to be known or understood by common folk, and if you dare question this doctrine you will burn in some fiery furnace. Some religions do teach that way, some are dogmatic and fundamentally driven. Others are more open in their point of view. The holy trinity is an obscure, unexplained, deliberately vague concept designed to limit comprehension, subjugate peoples minds, offering naught but a justification of other doctrine. It isnt mysterious at all, its just dogma for the sake of it, to prevent people thinking and asking questions. Well, that is your opinion, isn't it? Or are you telling us that your comments are not opinion but fact?
I guess the difference is that scientific method has shown us the physical basis of things that seemed miraculous to our ancestors, and continues to show us that we can codify and 'prove' things that still seem fantastic to me (the Krebs cycle, for instance, or the fact that a sub-atomic particle can, if accelerated and smashed into another particle, produce a bunch of other particles that in sum weigh more than the original particles. Yes, Brown is correct in stating that the the natural world is at least as mysterious as the idea of God, and maybe more so, but the new breed of scientists doesn't (hopefully) offer the proofs of science up as a "brusque common sense demystification". Every solved mystery creates 10 more unsolved ones. I remember clearly a particle physicist saying of his accelerator results "...it's as if you take a blender and an electric razor and smash them together at incredibly high speeds, and what emerges is a Volkswagen, a banana tree and a clock radio. It is that fantastic" Do we think we are objective? We strive for objectivity. We ask for proof of our ideas. We don't believe based on faith. You will never hear a scientist saying "I don't like that question, I won't answer it" as we have heard Z10 say about 20 times so far. You will never hear a scientist saying "There is no proof to the contrary, therefore my theory is true" like Z10 has said in this thread. Scientists say "This theory may or may not be true - let us try to disprove it." I for one have a healthy dose of mistrust for the scientific method, and I don't take as a given any of its results since it is so often proved wrong. I don't know how many times we can say the same thing, but - that is the beauty of it!! We are constantly trying to prove ourselves wrong - at least that's what good scientists are doing. When we encounter faith-merchants, we naturally pull the other way. Forgive us if we appear to be leaning a bit too far, but there is a huge weight at the other end of the rope. It is the weight of surety, of unquestioning faith in something that has no basis in fact. It can and has lead to a way of looking at the world that is based on superstition. We believe that down that road lies irrationality and quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo. We want our kids to question, not to accept things 'on faith' or because 'there is no evidence to the contrary". You only have to look at Z10's responses to some of questions he was asked. Look at the bit I quoted a few posts back when I said "Whoa, you win". For convenience, I will repost it here. This is the argument we are facing roberk, I respect you and your posts here. But tell me.... what does this mean? How is this an argument for or against anything other than for the OP? You can't find meaning in this because it is faith based - it has meaning only to him. There isn't a person on here who will post and tell me what that was supposed to mean. I can tell you what this means, though 2H2 + O2 > 2H2O Have evil things been done in the name of science? Of course!! Have more evil things been done in the name of God? I defy anyone to say no.
I disagree. It would be completely fair, because their thinking is one and the same. They seek a natural scientific proof for the existence and nature of a supernatural deity. This is impossible. If God were measurable scientifically, God would be a natural phenomenon, rather than God. Intelligent design as scientific investigation is a fraud, because it purports to be able to discover the supernatural by natural means. This cannot be done, because whatever can be measured by natural means, is "natural," and whatever cannot be measured is "supernatural." It may be true that God has designed the universe and everything within its scope. But, such considerations are entirely beyond the grasp of science or reason or anything that exists within the universe. Without this perfect barrier there could be no divine existence at all. The irony of it all, is that if the intelligent design movement were to succeed in proving their theory by scientific means, they would instantly disprove the existence of the very God that they seek to discover. God is only God, because he/she/it is unknowable by any natural methodology. Find God by natural means, and you reveal that the Wizard of Oz is just a snake oil salesman from Kansas.
The argument you make is flawed, somewhat reminiscent of the problems of Pascal's wager where his argument was based on a particular assumption of what God would want to happen, or what the true nature of God was, when it was not first established that God existed, or what God would necessarily want, or what God would necessarily be like. Intelligent design is not scientific investigation, it is a scientific explanation based on repetitive and consistently verified observations of living beings, and then reasonable induction from the specific measured effects to the general cause of these biological organisms, the cause being a source of order and design, or an ordered designer, and this ID is working behind the scenes and ultimately causing and/or controlling the effects. Many of the IDers we see are Christian and would shun religions other than Christianity, but a deist could easily subscribe to an intelligent design at work in the universe without the need for an active God to be pulling the strings. A working theory of ID is not limited to one particular religion's concept of God beyond the power to create and or maintain life.