Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by dogbarber, Oct 2, 2006.
...and I could argue evolution should belong in a philosophy class.
One issue we are banging our heads against is that science originally was a branch of philosophy. So it's always going to be tempting to relegate a theory one doesn't agree with to philosophy rather than science. It's not that big a deal really because both disciplines are more alike than they are different. I had a little more philosophy in undergrad than the typical engineer. One of the basic courses in philosophy is formal logic. It covers things like arguing a general case fromm a specific example and vice versa. The whole area of how to argue and prove points is covered as well. Many of the methods we understand to be scientific are derived from philosophy. Would I insist creationism and evolution are equal? No they are not. Creationism is derived from the bible and evolution is derived purely from scientific method. For this reason, it is understandable that evolutionists want to relegate creationism to a religion or philosophy class. I would be all in favor if that means we can start teaching religion again in our schools. I'm not all bent out of shape about what we call the class, only that the students get exposure to the material.
I have seen allegations that ID is on shaky ground like creationism. There's nothing wrong with starting off a scientific inquiry with a known conclusion in mind. Columbus was wrong when he thought he was in India rather than America. His work had no less merit because he started off with a flawed or only partial understanding. It doesn't bother me one bit if scientists who embrace ID are trying to lend support to creationism as long as their work withstands scientific scrutiny. If it is real science it belongs in a science class alongside evolution. If it is fake or pop science, it does not.
Perhaps a valid next step for this thread would be to identify persons who embrace ID and their academic or scientific credentials. Perhaps with links to their publications, we could all see for ourselves if there is serious scientific inquiry going on or merely pop science. That should make the decision of whether ID belongs in the science classroom a lot easier to answer.
Here's one of my favorites. Good idea!
The problem with this is that, thoughout our history, there have been scientific discoveries that contradict the currently held religious view.
I can't see how continental drift doesn't belong in a science class, because we can see it continuing to happen today and there is undeniable proof that it has been happening for millions of years. Yet, for many people, this contradicts their view that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Science (and medical) books would get much smaller if you removed everything that might not agree with biblical interpretations.
Biblical interpretations can be a bit flexible and change over time given increased scientific knowledge. At one time - to drag out the flat earth again - there was biblical evidence that supported a flat earth. Scripture speaks of the Earth's foundations, the corners of the earth, and the passages describing Satan taking Jesus up to a mountain high enough to see all of the cities of the world at one time. All of these can be interperated as describing a flat Earth, and that view was vigorously defended until the evidence became uncontestable. When that happened, there was a change in interperatation of the related passages.
Without any research to back up my opinion, I would venture a guess that similar interperatations were changed as our scientific knowledge has gone against the biblical grain in areas such as conception, disease, etc.
If the Bible is the "Living Word", then by definition, "life" is synonymous with "change".
I've already provided some good empirical ones, and there's more where that came from.
<the sound of russling pages>
Well....me ever loving to quote scripture:
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Thanks, db for the answersingenisis link. I was looking for something which was less blatantly evangelical. It will be hard for the secular thinkers in our group to accept anything if it is said by someone who can be assumed to have an agenda. Yes, I know that for some evolution is an agenda but I don't think it's fair to say that everyone who believes evolution has some atheistic agenda. For that reason, I wanted to find somebody in the ID camp who didn't have a blatantly creationist agenda or religious affiliation.
I found a pdf file on intelligent design written by a couple of scientists, one of whom is a phd. I know there are a lot of quasi-scientific people out there pushing ID, but it makes no sense to discredit it simply because non-scientists happen to latch onto it. I'm looking for an objective discussion of the science itself.
I mentioned formal logic a while back. One common fallacy is tha "ad hominem" fallacy where an argument has more or less weight depending on who said it. An example of this fallacy is the assumption ID is wrong simply because the first 10 google hits are zealous Christians. Another is the assumption evolution is true because of the credentials of its proponents.
Now I've gone out and dug up a couple of scientists who are pushing ID, not because I am partaking of the same fallacy but because of their academic credentials I might assume they know a thing or two about writing papers and that at their arguments will stand up to peer review and public scrutiny. I'm off to go check it out. You can check it out yourself here.
Edit: OOPS. I also picked a religious publication. The web site didn't have any blatantly religious affiliation so I assumed the paper would be theology neutral. I guess not. The scholarly publication is the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003. Oh well. I will read the paper anyway and hope that some of the references these guys cite lead me to scientists who are proponents of ID and are publishing in some scientific paper which is not affiliated with any particular religion. Who knows. Even though these guys are writing for a Catholic journal, they might provide some decent arguments and I will need to look no further for the purposes of this thread. I'm off to do some more reading...
Edit 2: Hey, the article seems to be exactly what I was looking for...
Edit 3: I like these guys!
Edit 4: Another quote I like,
Point taken and understood, however, it's the evangelicals (for the most part) that are holding to the infallibility, innerancy, and authority of Holy writ........remember Martin Luther?
Of course scripture is inerrant and the final authority for the Christian. While I cannot stomach atheism as our state religion, I'm not ready to force Christianity as our state religion either. Hence, to argue what should be taught in our public schools, I am willing to stick to sources which are not inherently religious. I like the article I found because it shows there is every reason to treat ID equally if not preferentially to evolution, and it does not rely on sources which those in the scientific community might view as biased.
Separate names with a comma.