Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue

[Risen]

I think Darwin accurately described the survival mechanisms and process for species/populations, but his theories do not solve the question of evolution, the progressive change from one species to another (or RAPID change if you follow some other theories that do not involve natural selection as the prime force of evolutionary leaps).

 

[Sniffles]

I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.

+1 Thank you. No I don't reject evolution, what I do reject are atheistic interpretations of evolution as some kind of evidence against God's existence and for a cosmos governed by chaos. Most religious denominations favor the concept of "Theistic evolution", which actually is harshly criticised by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I probably should note that many early religious criticisms of Darwin were actually based on the scientific data and theories of the time. So again, it's not an issue of science vs. religion.

 

[Night]

+1 Thank you.

What are you "+1 Thank you"-ing? The misinterpretation of my question to you?

 

[Sniffles]

What are you "+1 Thank you"-ing? The misinterpretation of my question to you?

EffEmDoubleyou didn't misintrept you in the manner you presented the question. Especially trying to point to JPII's position on evolution(which was already addressed in the excerpt I posted).

 

[Totenkindly]

I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think ID is a lousy idea, I think it's intriguing.

But it's not science.
You can't falsify it.

The whole premise is that the universe is organized in such a way that an intelligent creator must have been involved.

That might be interesting inductive reasoning, but it's not deductive.

...and yes, I wish the religious folks would get out of it and stop using ID for their own ends. Then again, the very guys who put together the term Intelligent Design and are heavily promoting it are all Christian evangelicals. The term was created as a subversive brand to Trojan Horse someone's religious values into the public mind and secular school system. If these guys had not conceived, packaged, and marketed this term and set of ideas about the world, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now... so I have trouble separating the term from the framework it represents. ID *is* religious in concept just from mere origin.

 

[DigitalStreetfighter]

Science and religion will always be at odds. Science is based on establishing facts and providing truths. Religion is based on faith...something that by definition cannot be proved.

No-one will be able to prove intelligent design is truth.

 

[Risen]

What are you "+1 Thank you"-ing? The misinterpretation of my question to you?

Don't get your jock strap in a bunch.

 

[Night]

Don't get your jock strap in a bunch.

Oh, Risen!

No, it's an honest question. I don't want Peguy to think I was taking a swing at him.

 

[Night]

EffEmDoubleyou didn't misintrept you in the manner you presented the question. Especially trying to point to JPII's position on evolution(which was already addressed in the excerpt I posted).

Incorrect.

I began the query by asking for your personal input, then mentioned a famous papal stance. From there, I summarized how this might influence the Catholic everyman.

Not sure how you misunderstood this:

So, what are your thoughts, Peguy?

The Catholic church, when under the wisdom of Pope John Paul II, embraced evolution as "more than mere hypothesis" in 1996.

How this applies to the layman remain to be seen; yet, papal identity has accepted evolution - and not Creationism - as the relevant architecture for our biological heritage.

 

[Sniffles]

Ok Night, I must've misunderstood you. I thought you were addressing me as if I was advancing a Creationist position.

 

[Night]

My fault.

I must've poorly framed the question.

 

[Haphazard]

Philosophy is basically an attempt to move beyond mere opinion to a more generalized truth. And philosophy or theory is the key to interpreting the facts concerning the origins of life(or anything for that matter). Theory is the form, while facts are the content so to speak. It actually maybe of interest to know that in terms of cosmological theories, there's not much new under the Sun really. For example, the Big Bang can be said to be an example of Stoic metaphysics.

So that makes "Intelligent Design" less a matter of right or wrong and more a matter of it makes no sense in the context of how we are teaching.

 

[Sniffles]

So that makes "Intelligent Design" less a matter of right or wrong and more a matter of it makes no sense in the context of how we are teaching.

No that's not what I'm saying.

 

[Southern Kross]

I agree with you Peguy. I don't think Science and Religion are in binary opposition. In most cases they can co-exist perfectly well. Didn't even Pope John Paul II accept the theory of evolution and that he can see the 6 days of creation as being symbolic rather than literal.

I think sensible, free-thinking, knowledge-seeking individuals will accept the theory of evolution. If they want to negotiate that concept in such a way that it encapsulates the theory of intelligent design, go for it. I think scientists have little business try to tear that choice away from people. There are many arguments against intelligent design but there is no way we can unassailably refute it. Even scientists must conceed that there is a great deal about the universe that we don't fully understand. People just choose to fill in the gaps in their own individual ways.

I don't, however, think creationism has any place in the classroom. It is up to an individual's church/religious body to deal with the issue.

 

[Sniffles]

I agree with you Peguy. I don't think Science and Religion are in binary opposition. In most cases they can co-exist perfectly well. Didn't even Pope John Paul II accept the theory of evolution and that he can see the 6 days of creation as being symbolic rather than literal.

Yes that's true. In fact I like how John Paul II summarised the proper relationship between science and religion:

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."

The issue is not science or religion, but science AND religion together.

 

[Haphazard]

No that's not what I'm saying.

Peguy, sometimes you use big words and complex sentences and I don't understand them.

Could you try explaining again?

 

[Sniffles]

Peguy, sometimes you use big words and complex sentences and I don't understand them.

Could you try explaining again?

The facts point to evolution. Whether or not this disproves God's existence is a matter of theoretical debate. Theory explains how the facts fit into the overall picture. Is this better?

 

[Haphazard]

The facts point to evolution. Whether or not this disproves God's existence is a matter of theoretical debate. Theory explains how the facts fit into the overall picture. Is this better?

Yes, much better, thanks.

 

[kelric]

Yes that's true. In fact I like how John Paul II summarized the proper relationship between science and religion:

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."

The issue is not science or religion, but science AND religion together.

This open-mindedness is one of the reasons I rather liked John Paul II as Pope (I'm not Catholic, or religious in general). I'm not sure that I agree that religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes, because proper science isn't a matter of absolutes (basic mathematics possibly excepted). Now perhaps religion can (and does) provide a mechanism to protect from false absolutes in that it helps people avoid seeing things in black-and-white in a more general way (although poorly implemented religions do just the opposite).

 

[BlueScreen]

+1 Thank you. No I don't reject evolution, what I do reject are atheistic interpretations of evolution as some kind of evidence against God's existence and for a cosmos governed by chaos.

The cosmos is a place of order and chaos. You can't ignore either as a scientist or a religious person. Looking at quantum mechanics for example, our ability to measure the universe on that level might limit us to seeing randomness: we make a measurement and have an unpredictable collapse into our reality. But the underlying system is a universe of entangled particles and interdependence. Evolution is changes in a biological system. It can depend on chemistry of surroundings, limitation of certain nutrients causing certain mutations, etc. It is all interconnected. Anyone who says science proves the cosmos is chaotic hence God does not exist, hasn't looked much at science or religion.

I think a lot of your points on the science religion debate are good. There are conflicts seen where there are none. I've never been a fan of Intelligent Design though. I always got the feeling someone came up with a half baked theory that they had only really thought through the marketing potential of. Maybe the equivalent of the crazy scientists who think they have invented hyperdrives.