[NT] NTs and God

[Mycroft]

I agree that the existance of god cannot be proven by science. And ID does not claim to do so. It confronts the assumption by darwinists that their theory is proof. It is not. And its flaws are beginning to show.

Long before ID was given a name, I ran across a book by a molecular biologist (and self proclaimed agnostic) titled "Evolution, a theory in crisis." This guy may not be an ID proponent. His point was that darwinism didn't work when you look at the basic building blocks of life.

He saw "distances" between different steps in the evolutionary process that could not statistically be traversed. Hence the jumping to the moon analogy. Many of the "steps" assumed in darwinism have 0% chance of occurring.

I watched an ID debate where the darwinist was talking about how fruit fly dna was manipulated to "turn off" sections of code that changed the number of legs or wings of the fruit fly. The ID proponent's point was that while mutations and natural selection can explain the switching on or off of sections of dna code, they cannot explain the existence of the code itself. Its kind of like wind and wave action can remove a turret on a sand castle or thow up sand against a wall, but they cannot build the castle. The castle can only come about by an intelligent and directed process.

It's true that there are certain stages in the progression from chemicals to life that science cannot presently account for. (And, I will mention as a side note, are outside the scope of evolutionary theory.) Hence there is dissent. Your so-called "ID scientists" are one variety of this dissent.

You are making a classic logical error:

There is something scientists can't presently explain!
Therefore, God exists.

By the by, your line of "reasoning" has a name.

 

[Mycroft]

As an aside, I would be mightily impressed if, occasionally, the NT believers on this board took it upon themselves to point out these logical inconsistencies, then, perhaps, explaining how they have taken the fallacies into account in formulating their respective world views, rather than always leaving we atheist-leaning-agnostics to do the work.

Just sayin'.

 

[Kangirl]

As an aside, I would be mightily impressed if, occasionally, the NT believers on this board took it upon themselves to point out these logical inconsistencies, then, perhaps, explaining how they have taken the fallacies into account in formulating their respective world views, rather than always leaving we atheist-leaning-agnostics to do the work.

Just sayin'.

Just agreein'. (I identified myself as an agnostic earlier in the thread...I don't want to be mistaken for a believer if I haven't been clear)

Erudur, I see no real support for your argument that Darwinism is fading in credibility. If anything, it seems to be the other way around. A book or a quote from someone who agrees with you is proof of nothing. Can you give me the name of a serious (and taken seriously by the scientific community) scientist who argues that Darwinism is incorrect? Other than 'God did it' are there any other theories? Preferably backed by solid science? What is the book you mentioned? I'd be interested in reading it if I can confirm it's not written by someone with an agenda.

Are there gaps in the fossil record? Yes. Is this to be expected? Also yes. We haven't quite yet excavated the entire planet! Do these gaps somehow mean God exists? I don't see how they do.

 

[Mycroft]

Are there gaps in the fossil record? Yes. Is this to be expected? Also yes. We haven't quite yet excavated the entire planet! Do these gaps somehow mean God exists? I don't see how they do.

Be careful. You're falling into the common trap of believing that evolutionary theory and the process by which chemicals gave way to life are the same field. Evolutionary theory starts where life has already come into being.

 

[Erudur]

You are making a classic logical error:

There is something scientists can't presently explain!
Therefore, God exists.

I agree that is a logical error, and did not intend to leave the impression that I was making it.

In my personal journey I have come to the conclusion that God exists, but I do not believe that ID (as compelling as I find it) proves that.

 

[Erudur]

Erudur, I see no real support for your argument that Darwinism is fading in credibility...

Check out the link I posted early in the Eck dialogue.

Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

Here's a snippet:

"What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate "other" new phenomena. So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago, seems about to be reborn as the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.""

Now I am guessing that I will probably still take issue with the new direction they end up going, because I am guessing it will still overlay the majority bias that there is no intelligent designer behind life. I still found the article fascinating, and this eventuality was expected by all the non-darwinists out there with an interest in this subject.

 

[Mycroft]

...because I am guessing it will still overlay the majority bias that there is no intelligent designer behind life.

...are we inhabitants of the same planet?

(I'll also point out that, thus far, the only basis for your beliefs you've provided is a textbook argument from incredulity.)

 

[Erudur]

...are we inhabitants of the same planet?

I don't understand your question?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't understand your question?

I was calling into question your patently false assertion that there is a "majority bias" against the existence of a deity by employing a technique known as "sarcasm".

 

[Erudur]

I was calling into question your patently false assertion that there is a "majority bias" against the existence of a deity by employing a technique known as "sarcasm".

There seems to be a majority bias among biologists/anthropologists. Maybe not so much the hard sciences.

Sarcasm only works if what you're calling into question is questionable.

 

[Erudur]

I was calling into question your patently false assertion that there is a "majority bias" against the existence of a deity by employing a technique known as "sarcasm".

There seems to be a majority bias among biologists/anthropologists. Maybe not so much the hard sciences.

Sarcasm only works if what you're calling into question is questionable.

I'm intentionally pushing the "hard/soft" definition as a dig to biologists and anthropologists.

 

[EcK]

There seems to be a majority bias among biologists/anthropologists. Maybe not so much the hard sciences.

Sarcasm only works if what you're calling into question is questionable.

I'm intentionally pushing the "hard/soft" definition as a dig to biologists and anthropologists.

You quoted einstein, there's newton also for example. And so on. Not all scientists are atheists.
The bias would rather be towards ID strong supporters. I doubt any of them isn't religious.

But I'm not sure you can call it a bias anyway. Would you say we are biased because we believe that light has absolute speed? Yes and No. There is dogma in every activity of the human life for we can't always doubt everything. It isn't efficient.

For example: can you always doubt if earth gravity won't suddently fail you or crush you \ your car will start if you turn the key (...).
The human mind classifies things to save up computing power and improve reaction time in daily activities.

But even the dogma of science never stopped it from kicking bad theories out and allowing better ones in.
On the other hand religion keeps throwing a quasi identitical theory at us for now 5000 thousand years or more, only adjusting itself when the ideas clearly become unsupportable in its time.
ID is another example of the same idea adapting to its time. Therefore the bias that led people to support the same undisprovable idea despite continuous refutation of the facts of religious texts and beliefs it uses as an historical and cultural base is clearly infinitely stronger than scientific dogma.

But experience has taught us that improving on the same idea has never been the way to go if we wanted a true understanding of the universe.


I don't think ID has any other reason to be than the human need to classify things into rigid and more efficient categories for daily use. It both answers their fears about death\the unknown and the lack of control they have on the universe while giving a ready to use answer for everything.

 

[Erudur]

...The bias would rather be towards ID strong supporters. I doubt any of them isn't religious...

...But even the dogma of science never stopped it from kicking bad theories out and allowing better ones in.

...But experience has taught us that improving on the same idea has never been the way to go if we wanted a true understanding of the universe.

1-ID proponents are probably more represented by theism, but there are also agnostics. As far as religion, many theists are not religeous. Some just push back the "origins of life" question by postulating that the earth was seeded with DNA by aliens.

2-The dogma of science (the scientific establishment) always seems to slow down acceptance of new ideas by the resistance of the orthodoxy.

3-Hurray! I found a point of agreement with you EcK.

BTW, did you read the article I linked? Its not that long, and addresses a number of misconceptions regarding darwinism that you keep embracing. Well, that you seem to keep embracing.

 

[EcK]

I'm going out now so maybe i'll answer later just one thing:

BTW, did you read the article I linked? Its not that long, and addresses a number of misconceptions regarding darwinism that you keep embracing. Well, that you seem to keep embracing.

I don't know what sort of mistakes you think I embrace. But I'd rather lean towards a misunderstanding.
The fama says that the school of plato had a plate where you could read: 'let noone who is ignorant of mathematics enter here'
I'd simply like to say you're understanding of basic statistics seems really flawed. I'll use the example of the guy trying to jump to the moon for example.
Also, I undisbelieve you said something about the fact that darwin's evolution didn't apply before what we call biological life. But alot of scientists think evolution started before life emerged. I will document it later if you're interested.

 

[Erudur]

I'm going out now so maybe i'll answer later just one thing:


I don't know what sort of mistakes you think I embrace. But I'd rather lean towards a misunderstanding.
The fama says that the school of plato had a plate where you could read: 'let noone who is ignorant of mathematics enter here'
I'd simply like to say you're understanding of basic statistics seems really flawed. I'll use the example of the guy trying to jump to the moon for example.
Also, I undisbelieve you said something about the fact that darwin's evolution didn't apply before what we call biological life. But alot of scientists think evolution started before life emerged. I will document it later if you're interested.

Your are misreading at least part of what I've been saying, including the referenced analogy. I'm not sure how to rectify that.

 

[EcK]

Your are misreading at least part of what I've been saying, including the referenced analogy. I'm not sure how to rectify that.

nevermind that then, i'm not trying to start fights here. I just noticed alot of the examples given by ID supporters show a really weak understanding or at least understimating of the effects large numbers and statistics can have.

ps: what am i not getting ? (curious)
pss: U did also misread most of what I said intepreting it as simply angry ranting.

 

[Kangirl]

Erudur - I'm going to read the linked article now.

Re: majority bias - I assumed, when you first said it, that you were talking about the human population as a whole and not just (certain flavours of) scientists. If it had been the former I think the bias is definitely *towards* theism.

MyCroft - I'm not a scientist, and my practical knowledge here is definitely limited by that, so thanks for pointing out what you did.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: majority bias - I assumed, when you first said it, that you were talking about the human population as a whole and not just (certain flavours of) scientists. If it had been the former I think the bias is definitely *towards* theism.

The wording was ambiguous; given Erudur's "us versus the world" approach to belief, I read into it the same meaning as you did, Kangirl.

MyCroft - I'm not a scientist, and my practical knowledge here is definitely limited by that, so thanks for pointing out what you did.

I'm glad to be of service, but I would also warn against developing the mentality that you need to be an expert in every given field to have common sense and to be able to arrive at rational conclusions. This is the mentality the "no one can ever really know anything!" faction feeds off of.

 

[Erudur]

Just to go on record as admitting mistakes - my wording was ambiguous.

For the record, nearly everything I wrote was confined to the origins of life/darwinism/ID arena.

... "us versus the world" approach ...

Mycroft - you seem a bit snarky. The comments were "ID versus the Darwinist Orthodoxy" rather than "us/world." And it seems to be a pretty nasty exchange. Lots of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. Plus I don't feel qualified to claim myself as an ID representative in any broad sense. So I don't claim to be one of the "us."

 

[Darjur]

There seems to be a majority bias among biologists/anthropologists. Maybe not so much the hard sciences.

I'm intentionally pushing the "hard/soft" definition as a dig to biologists and anthropologists.

If we're talking about life and the dependence of god on life, why would we base our opinion on the opinions of physicists or other experts in fields unrelated to the one we are talking about?


P.S. About the gaps, science isn't finished, of course we don't know everything. The problem in your viewpoint is that you have the thought pattern that is goes like this "There are holes in theory A, so theory B is automatically correct." This is not a valid argument for theory B, because it does not prove anything about theory B's validity.

P.P.S. Define "Soft" / "Hard" science.