Debate #9

[loosechanj]

I think my lack of opposition to Intelligent Design is due to the fact that I don't see Evolution as being particularly more valid than a properly expressed ID theory. Darwin gives people who don't want to feel beholden to any higher power the comfort of living in a universe without one, whether that's reality or not.

Comments

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

That's the kind of hostility to an idea one normally sees in the fundie crowd. Some nice generalizations as well. What about the idea of some sort of creator/planner/etc frightens you so much?

No problem with a creator

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

Big problem with fundies. Especially fundies that base their arguments on a book that wasn't even written until the first century and then discounted as non-literal even by its authors, the Catholic Church.

Yes, ALL source documents of the Bible are owned and written by the Catholic Church, even the King James.

I might point out that even the Catholic Church

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

teaches evolution in its parish schools. They do NOT teach ID.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

What about the idea of some sort of creator/planner/etc frightens you so much?

It's not that it's frightening. It's that it has no place in science, which seeks naturalistic explanations for the physical world.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

I submit that "god" would be a perfectly natural explanation. Not an god in particular, or even a diety, but simply the intelligence which designed. Creators of the monolith, for example.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Ah, so are we talking about Raelism?

Care to articulate a testable hypothesis based on the theory that the diversity life is the result of extraterrestrial influence? And propose the test for the hypothesis too. And, remember, evolution cannot be a better or equally likely explanation for the observed phenomenon. You may begin...now.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

Sorry to get back late, but just gotta say...

The thought of an active creator doesn't frighten me at all. But such a creator is not verifiable (the whole concept of faith, eh), and must remain in the realm of religion. Should humans evolve to the point where they can interact on a one-to-one level with said creator and observe the creation function, then the existence would be verifiable and I'll be the first one to volunteer to teach it in science class. ;)

I would say that ID is welcome to be taught in religion class, along with all religions creation myths. Of course, the outcry among Christians when the Hindu (or Native American) myths is given equal treatment would be quite telling.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with that whole "proof denies faith" thing.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

Perhaps not, but faith remains where there is no proof.

I find Augustine to be useful at the intersection of faith and reason, ""What we believe, we owe to authority, what we know (understand) we owe to reason." Science uses reason only. Filling in the gaps of science with belief (or faith) is fine, but is extra-science.

That's because you have it backwards.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Faith denies proof.

In fact, if it acknowledged proof, it would no longer be faith.

Faith is belief in spite of proof.

Proof is simply proof. It doesn't need faith in order to exist.

Re: That's because you have it backwards.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

Not at all.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Mostly I'm speaking about #1, rarely #2, and never #4.

#2 opens up the door to believing anything at all.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Even the Spaghetti Monster "Theory". So we can laugh that one right out the door.

As for #1, what makes you have confidence?

For most scientists, it's provable results. For most religionists, it's...?

From my observations, I would say it's their trust in others. Since religions are "exempt" from proof, it cannot be trust in provable results. How does one prove God created the earth? One doesn't. But one has faith that the other guys who SAID God created the earth were telling the truth.

And that is blind trust, which makes it no better than #2.

To trust that gravity will always apply may not be 100% accurate (if you suddenly find yourself in space, for example), but it DOES rely on provable results. Every time I've ever thrown something up, it has either gotten stuck on some physical obstacle or come back down. So I have "faith" that gravity works. It's not blind faith, though, which is the key difference.

If a better theory comes along that explains it and more, I will probably switch beliefs.

Re: #2 opens up the door to believing anything at all.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

Religion needn't be exempt from proof. And gravity *does* apply in space. :-P

Religion isn't exempt from proof.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Nothing is. But they think they are. That's why I put it in quotes.

Gravity may apply in space, but the uninformed observations would indicate that it didn't. And there may be places where gravity doesn't apply. Not being omniscient, I cannot say with absolute certainty that they don't exist.

But it comes down to who you gonna believe, and why. The why is a biggie.