Intelligent design

[paultrr]

Here is an example of what we see behind all this forced lets do this issue. President Bush indicated Wednesday that Harriet E. Miers' religious beliefs were one reason he nominated her to the Supreme Court. Guys, like it our not the rest of this world that either believes another way via another religion or who have no belief system sees such judgements as typical of why we reject the government in the first place telling us either what to believe or what to teach our children when it comes to science. Given that we are supposed to have seperation of Church and State using one's evangelical beliefs as a reason to appoint someone to a post is just dead wrong. What it comes across to the rest of us is all the Christians out there want the government to decide when it comes to religion. You guys act as if you want the whole world to think the way you do or be forced to do such by government demand. What has happened is the democratic party, while taking on a leftist leaning that never seems to quit, has swung to socialism as it's motto, the republican party has swung so far right that we might as well return to the prerevolution days when the States dictated what people believe. There are preachers out there who have great evangelical stances. But take Pat Robertson as an example of one of them who does not belong in control. We'd end up in the end run with absolute dictatorship. Being evangelical is not a reason to put someone into office. Has the Church forgotten that even Christ said there would be false prophets in their midst. Have we slipped so far down the let's look to the government for everything mentality that we think having what the chruch claims is sinfull fallen man in control of everything will solve our problems.

 

I do not care what a person's religion is when it comes to public office one iota. Actually, if the case where known guys like Bush who push their religion from the Capitol rather turn me off altogether. They reak of the same stence we had with Nazi germany in WWII and under the King of England, and the dark ages. Personally I cannot wait to have the last laugh when some of these great evangelical thinkers turn on some of you believers because you do not agree with them exactly. Perhaps you think it will not happen. You are mistaken and have forgotten that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

As for ID being or not being scientific. The majority of individuals as you mention do not agree with you it is scientific at all, at least in the format it is presented in at present. If the majority here actually is a slice of good old America in general, then by majority opinion it does not belong in our schools. The problem we the majority face is you vocal minorties claiming to be the moral majority tend to run everything via the powers that be in high office and seem to be hell bent on getting even more power. while totally blind to the danger in such that history has over and over shown any rational person. This trend exists at the local level and it exists higher up.

[TRoutMac]

As for ID being or not being scientific. The majority of individuals as you mention do not agree with you it is scientific at all, at least in the format it is presented in at present.

 

Several points: First, truth is not determined by majority rule. Legislation and political leaders might be, but truth is not.

 

Secondly, if the majority doesn't believe I.D. is scientific, then they are wrong. And although you failed to acknowledge it, I just provided you with the "test" that shows as much in my previous post. That same "majority" is behind archaeology and SETI and several other scientific fields of study that use the same reasoning, the same tests to detect intelligent design. The fact that they deny the scientific basis for Intelligent Design while accepting the others reveals their logical inconsistency and their agenda.

 

So, rather than just accepting without question that the "majority" must always be right, I'd kindly suggest you weigh it in your own mind. If you do, you will be forced to concur that Intelligent Design is every bit as scientific as those other fields of study, and those who tell you it's not are simply not interested in truth, they're only interested in fooling themselves and fooling you.

 

There was a lot of other things I'd like to comment on in your post, but this is not a political forum so I'll stay out of it.

[questor]

DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes and other essentials of life are large molecules which are

composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons and protons, which are composed of

smaller particles, which are composed of......? we know how the large particles work, but at what level does the activity start? what is the energy source, and how does this all work to produce life? is this not the highest evidence in the universe of intelligent design? and is it not visible to the naked eye?

[paultrr]

Several points: First, truth is not determined by majority rule. Legislation and political leaders might be, but truth is not.

 

Secondly, if the majority doesn't believe I.D. is scientific, then they are wrong. And although you failed to acknowledge it, I just provided you with the "test" that shows as much in my previous post. That same "majority" is behind archaeology and SETI and several other scientific fields of study that use the same reasoning, the same tests to detect intelligent design. The fact that they deny the scientific basis for Intelligent Design while accepting the others reveals their logical inconsistency and their agenda.

 

So, rather than just accepting without question that the "majority" must always be right, I'd kindly suggest you weigh it in your own mind. If you do, you will be forced to concur that Intelligent Design is every bit as scientific as those other fields of study, and those who tell you it's not are simply not interested in truth, they're only interested in fooling themselves and fooling you.

 

There was a lot of other things I'd like to comment on in your post, but this is not a political forum so I'll stay out of it.

 

I have no problem with it being discussed even side by side with evolution. What I do have as a problem is when the government begins to intrude and says its this way or no way. That in itself answers all you just said about SETI, which interesting enough has its own share of believers involved in that program too. SETI follows a scientific path to discovery even if they eventuall do find a signal or do not. The way the ID position gets presented by most is like touting religion and making assumptions that say the genetic code requires a designer without having first proven it is predesigned in the first place. That is all based upon the same assumption I used before when it comes to how does the universe know where everything is at and upon the same logic you say is false that we use to abstract from knowns to that everything must be self-organized. If one is wrong then all of those assumptions can be just as wrong.

 

 

Face it, no one knows and those who do either have an assumption system based upon prior evidence or they have by faith chosen the path they took. Either way there really isn't any solid evidence of an absolute nature that would stand up in an unbiased court of law if such existed. However, if one went upon circumstantial evidence alone then evolution has the most in its favor while ID's major premise only has the one pattern from human life that something complex tends to require a designer. I am not speaking about some of the other stuff raised here under the ID bannor about mutational changes not being the only driving force in what we call evolution. I am strickly attacting the central core of ID that a designer must exist. That is the one aspect that most of us would argue with you guys the most on. You have one example based upon limited human knowledge and nothing more to support that one and that assumption requires faith which a lot of us here in America's scientific community tend to reject. That is the part that none of you guys have ever been able to prove or disprove and which we see as the most unscientific in the whole presentation. To prove that you need peer reviewed experiment and documentation as bad as we need the same proving non-living matter can become living matter. The rest of some of those ideas you're side brings up is not that outside of some scientific thought. But the whole foundation of you're presentation is that complexity requires a designer which only has human behaviour to go on. We at least with our assumption have the rest of the historical record to back us up. I can, as a scientists look at that same complexity and suspect its all self-organized. You cannot because you are a believer deep down and inside of you want there to be proof God exists.

 

Boil it all down and everything you have is based upon that faith born assumption. Boil it all down and everything we have is based upon logical deduction from the majority of the historical record. Its that historical record which we use as the judge on this subject and why you guys cannot get past the peer review level. We actually discount in major ways human experience as the only judge and jury out there. Human experience is far too colored by human emotions to work as a judge when it comes to science in general. It takes more of an absolute judge in the form of much longer historical records, experiments, etc when it comes to science. We have no belief in the valdity of the Bible, so it is out as a judge. We only trust in what we can see and study directly. You stand upon faith and we stand upon rational logic. It is not logical to believe. If it was you're God would have said that by knowledge you will be saved. What you're God claims to have said in all those writtings is that the just will live by faith. These two avenues cannot mix with anything but trouble. It was disobediant gaining of knowledge that brought about the fall of man according to the Bible. Spiritual truth is not that truth that comes via logical deduction at all. Real faith of the true believe transcends logic even when there is no evidence at all. That is something science does not deal with and was never designed to deal with.

[TRoutMac]

DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes and other essentials of life are large molecules which are composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons and protons, which are composed of smaller particles, which are composed of......? we know how the large particles work, but at what level does the activity start? what is the energy source, and how does this all work to produce life? is this not the highest evidence in the universe of intelligent design? and is it not visible to the naked eye?

 

I think this is yet another manifestation of the "It's turtles all the way down" problem. You're right… you can keep explaining this particle by pointing to smaller particles, but then you have to explain the smaller particles by even smaller particles ad infinitum. You get nowhere, ultimately. That's not to say that it's of no interest to discover those smaller particles… they are important and useful. But they don't answer the origins question, which is what we're all talking about. You cannot answer the question of origins if you subscribe to methodological naturalism.

 

The thing I find absolutely fascinating is the instructions in DNA. Instructions for building and operating a living organism. And that's a description that's widely used and accepted. Bill Gates said that DNA is like a software program, but much more complicated than any software program anyone has ever been able to write. (that's a paraphrase) The software you're all using did not "self-organize" and did not write itself. It was produced by intelligence.

 

While I may not agree with you, questor, on a couple of things, it's nice to know that you appear to recognize this and that I'm not the only one.

[questor]

why not make a comparison of evidence for and against ID or random creation of the universe? i am not talking about God creating man or religion, i'm just talking about how the whole universe started.

we know the universe exists, so how did it start?

1. it was always here

2. it just happened with no cause

3. it happened by way of a cause.

if 1. is the answer, why the BB? if the universe was always here and functioning well,

what event in an ordered universe would cause the BB ?

2. if it just happened, how did order ensue? why not chaos? how did the 4 universal forces happen to occur which make the order possible? what evidence exists for the scientist to assume that the universe occurred from chaos? i hope you can understand this question.

3. with the presence of order, the universal forces, the information present in all living things, how can one not infer that there was intelligent design?

 

someone please give evidence for the OTHER SIDE!

[questor]

Trout Mac, i'm trying to deal with the level where particulate matter reacts in such a way as to create life. your interest in genetic information is fine, but that is on a macro scale.

something has to occur at the lowest elemental level to differentiate life from inanimate objects. living things are made of elements and so are rocks. at what level of combination of elements do the humans separate from the rocks? if you have a pile of electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, muons,etc lying around, how do you put these together to create life? at what level does the life force live?

[paultrr]

why not make a comparison of evidence for and against ID or random creation of the universe? i am not talking about God creating man or religion, i'm just talking about how the whole universe started.

we know the universe exists, so how did it start?

1. it was always here

2. it just happened with no cause

3. it happened by way of a cause.

if 1. is the answer, why the BB? if the universe was always here and functioning well,

what event in an ordered universe would cause the BB ?

2. if it just happened, how did order ensue? why not chaos? how did the 4 universal forces happen to occur which make the order possible? what evidence exists for the scientist to assume that the universe occurred from chaos? i hope you can understand this question.

3. with the presence of order, the universal forces, the information present in all living things, how can one not infer that there was intelligent design?

 

someone please give evidence for the OTHER SIDE!

 

That first question is the one both sides area asking or at least trying to come up with a solution on. One problem out of religious side tems back to: God existed before all things, including time (Jn. 1:3, 17:5; Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:9). God chose from outside time actions to take place in time (Isa. 46:9). By such a definition of action it is impossible for science to study such a character to begin with. Its outside of what we can test, so to speak. To a certain extent without evidence of that early stage of life development we face the same problem even though such is within time itself. The best anyone can hope for is trying to duplicate conditions in a lab and seeing what transpires.

[TRoutMac]

Trout Mac, i'm trying to deal with the level where particulate matter reacts in such a way as to create life. your interest in genetic information is fine, but that is on a macro scale.

something has to occur at the lowest elemental level to differentiate life from inanimate objects. living things are made of elements and so are rocks. at what level of combination of elements do the humans separate from the rocks? if you have a pile of electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, muons,etc lying around, how do you put these together to create life? at what level does the life force live?

 

If you'll forgive me, I have a personal tragedy that underscores your questions, and I agree they are excellent questions. Approaching five years ago my first child, a son named Conner, died in my arms. He was 18 days old. Long story, but we learned with 8 weeks to go 'til delivery, that he had a chromosomal anomaly called Trisomy 13. Enough about that, the point goes to your question about life. My little boy was alive one minute and gone the next. His body weighed the same, had the same mass, had the same cells, the same molecules, etc. But he was gone. To me, that can only mean one thing: The "real you" is software, not hardware. His "hardware" remained after he had passed, and just as your computer will not start up without an operating system, neither will your body.

 

It's my contention that we are incapable of discovering where the "operating system" comes from, because it comes from something beyond what we understand as nature. By that I mean, undiscoverable or inexplicable in purely natural terms. To try to explain it natural terms is, once again, to beg the question. And of course, this idea squares perfectly with the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

[questor]

TroutMac, i am very sorry about your loss. i think and hope someday genetic discoveries may eliminate this type occurrence. we have basic agreement about the direction that must be taken to understand our universe. my initial interest in this subject arose from the contemplation of life at the sub-atomic level. it must lie at that level.

you may have some interest in reading this information...

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

[paultrr]

If you'll forgive me, I have a personal tragedy that underscores your questions, and I agree they are excellent questions. Approaching five years ago my first child, a son named Conner, died in my arms. He was 18 days old. Long story, but we learned with 8 weeks to go 'til delivery, that he had a chromosomal anomaly called Trisomy 13. Enough about that, the point goes to your question about life. My little boy was alive one minute and gone the next. His body weighed the same, had the same mass, had the same cells, the same molecules, etc. But he was gone. To me, that can only mean one thing: The "real you" is software, not hardware. His "hardware" remained after he had passed, and just as your computer will not start up without an operating system, neither will your body.

 

It's my contention that we are incapable of discovering where the "operating system" comes from, because it comes from something beyond what we understand as nature. By that I mean, undiscoverable or inexplicable in purely natural terms. To try to explain it natural terms is, once again, to beg the question. And of course, this idea squares perfectly with the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

 

You may be right on that last part. In fact, though I never mention this much I had a child die in my arms a few years back myself and know what you are saying. I think my own personal gripe is not so much with the idea of a designer. I sometimes ponder that same issue myself. Its more with anyone trying to tell another this is what you have to believe. Personally I've never agreeded with science telling people, say God is dead or that God does not exist when we do not know everything. Those types of statements are more a personal belief than anything else and as someoneelse argued well he belong more in the area of philosophy than any where else.

 

When I was involved growing up early on with the Church I thought everything they said was the truth. One day it suddenly began to dawn on me that some of these people are as screwed up as those they tend to attack and that they did not have the cornor of the market on truth. When I opened my mind to a reality beyond the Bible and the Church I found this even more true. I respect the religious person who has a personal belief in God and can manage to keep that real lasting simple faith that does not require evidence or signs. I do not have to agree with them to respect them. I find most often they are not the pushy types who tend to turn the rest of us out here off. We probably will never agree. But we can agree to disagree in a cival way.

 

I see two trends in this country which I think are both the wrong approach going on. On the one hand we have athiests, at least the politcal vocal ones lining up trying to make everyone think the way they do. On the otherside we have Christians lining up trying to get society to believe their way. I am not certain who scares me more. The Christians at times seem hell bent on making the end times come even if they have to force it. The athiests want everyone to be as godless as them. The majority of us out here are neither. Some of us might be termed believers in one form of Creator or another, some are not. But we simply do not want either group in control and telling us what is right. Call us the free thinkers who strongly believe in the free will of man and certain basic human rights. But that is who we are and neither extreme is considered by us as right. Some of my kids attend church by their own choice. Some do not. I have never once forced my own ideas on them. But if asked I will tell them what I do think. If I teach a science class I teach evolution because to me its the best we have at present. But I am willing to discuss the alternatives out there and willing to listen to other ideas.

[TRoutMac]

I think my own personal gripe is not so much with the idea of a designer. I sometimes ponder that same issue myself. Its more with anyone trying to tell another this is what you have to believe.

 

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else (can't remember who) on this forum. I think everyone should believe what's true and reject what's false. Whoever I was responding to told me that nobody here was telling me I shouldn't believe in I.D. Well, sorry, but that's a load of bull. If you think I.D. is false, and you have any respect at all for the truth, then you should convince me to reject it!! I think I should be free to believe what I want, but I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do any of you? We should be free to believe as we see fit, but we should all realize that something is true and it's up to us to figure out what.

 

So to be totally honest, I'm telling you that you should reject evolution. That doesn't mean I think you should be forced to reject it, and it doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to accept evolution even though it is false. It simply means that I'm convinced it's false and that I have enough respect for the truth and enough respect for people (not wanting them to be misled) that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't want people to feel threatened at all, but I don't want people to accept what is false. If people insist on doing just that, then fine… that's their business.

 

With respect to religious beliefs, seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that either one religion is true, or all of them are false; just our own personal fairy tales. If it's the latter, then we're all lying to ourselves and we ought to stop. If it's the former, then we all ought to be prepared to deal with the possibility that we're wrong, because if only one religion is true, then all others are necessarily false.

 

I hope you catch the nuances here. I'm as much in support of freedom of religion as anyone. Believe what you want, ultimately it's your business. But I'm not going to blow smoke up peoples' posteriors and say that I'm not telling them they shouldn't believe in evolution. Not only am I telling you you shouldn't believe in evolution, but I'm telling you why.

 

I've raised several key problems regarding evolution and particularly methological naturalism to several of you numerous times, and I have not heard one answer to explain those problems away. My comments are essentially ignored or I'm simply told I'm wrong.

 

I'll ask you, and anybody else: If, in the name of science, we restrict our explanations of natural phenomena to those that are "natural", when will we ever get to the "first cause"? If we do find a "first cause" that is "natural", then don't we have to find a natural explanation for it as well? And if that's true, then it's not really the "first cause", is it? How would you answer this? Does this not call into serious question methodological naturalism's validity as (an alleged) governing philosophy of science? Is it really me being illogical here?

[questor]

Mac, your ''first cause'' and my ''bottom line'' are the same thing. it is the elemental level at which a process is put into action. now that we know the periodic table does not speak to sub-atomic particles we must constantly think smaller as new particles are found. somewhere down below what our current technology can detect lies the truth. since the human being, which exhibits life and thought, is the foremost creation of the universe ( as far as we now know ), the answer to the final theory one day may be found within us.

[paultrr]

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else (can't remember who) on this forum. I think everyone should believe what's true and reject what's false. Whoever I was responding to told me that nobody here was telling me I shouldn't believe in I.D. Well, sorry, but that's a load of bull. If you think I.D. is false, and you have any respect at all for the truth, then you should convince me to reject it!! I think I should be free to believe what I want, but I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do any of you? We should be free to believe as we see fit, but we should all realize that something is true and it's up to us to figure out what.

 

So to be totally honest, I'm telling you that you should reject evolution. That doesn't mean I think you should be forced to reject it, and it doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to accept evolution even though it is false. It simply means that I'm convinced it's false and that I have enough respect for the truth and enough respect for people (not wanting them to be misled) that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't want people to feel threatened at all, but I don't want people to accept what is false. If people insist on doing just that, then fine… that's their business.

 

With respect to religious beliefs, seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that either one religion is true, or all of them are false; just our own personal fairy tales. If it's the latter, then we're all lying to ourselves and we ought to stop. If it's the former, then we all ought to be prepared to deal with the possibility that we're wrong, because if only one religion is true, then all others are necessarily false.

 

I hope you catch the nuances here. I'm as much in support of freedom of religion as anyone. Believe what you want, ultimately it's your business. But I'm not going to blow smoke up peoples' posteriors and say that I'm not telling them they shouldn't believe in evolution. Not only am I telling you you shouldn't believe in evolution, but I'm telling you why.

 

I've raised several key problems regarding evolution and particularly methological naturalism to several of you numerous times, and I have not heard one answer to explain those problems away. My comments are essentially ignored or I'm simply told I'm wrong.

 

I'll ask you, and anybody else: If, in the name of science, we restrict our explanations of natural phenomena to those that are "natural", when will we ever get to the "first cause"? If we do find a "first cause" that is "natural", then don't we have to find a natural explanation for it as well? And if that's true, then it's not really the "first cause", is it? How would you answer this? Does this not call into serious question methodological naturalism's validity as (an alleged) governing philosophy of science? Is it really me being illogical here?

 

Yes we do need to find a solution to that first cause if we are going to claim its all by natural results. Right now I personally cannot answer that question with enough certainty to be worth my getting in a long explination. Some of the other problems I have heard raised in these forums I could perhaps answer given the time and have attempted to point out what is known at present. But some of those I do not have a solid answer on at present.

 

Our general assumption(there goes that word again) is if we better understood how the universe works at all levels(macro and micro) we get an answer that self explains why everything is the results of natural cause. In fact, we suspect it to be part of the equations, so to speak. In that case as part of the answer it is its own natural first cause. My biggest question to date in all this is if there is information(using the root term for entropy here) that preceeds the universe we exist in even if such is the result itself of natural cause then we have part of the solution forever beyond our reach at least in classical approaches and research. This idea is actually what all those more recent cosmology models trying to get away from a singularity imply. That being the case then we are left with the same problem the religious are left with when it comes to a solution being outside our ability to really study it. Here we come right back to what others like myself have raised as a problem when it comes to combining religion and science in the first place. It is a problem which while sounding good on paper as far as solutions goes actually only manages to escape answering the fundamental question via shifting its answer outside of our ability to determine it.

 

Some of us out here have seen this problem coming for a bit and even if we like some of those new cosmology solutions we still recognize what some term a turning of science into philosophy and modern myth. My real question is science in the end run ending up at the same point religion is stuck with of trying to define a source outside what can be directly studied. At that point we are all left with reaching out on faith and we might all as well go form our own churches. It would also imply there is no great finial theory to be had which rather would translates to the end of physics as we know it today. I am not the only one who has been asking those same questions out there. It is a common one at least in popular press articles and recorded personal thoughts on subjects like this. But its big name people who are asking those questions now.

[TRoutMac]

Yes we do need to find a solution to that first cause if we are going to claim its all by natural results. Right now I personally cannot answer that question with enough certainty to be worth my getting in a long explination.

 

Well, there can obviously be no solution, because any solution must be natural, according to methodological naturalism. Damocles just snaps back that I'm using "faulty logic" and then pastes half-a-dictionary's worth of definitions of "phenomenon" and "explanation" as if that solves the problem. Total case of denial, pure and simple. Methodological naturalism is bogus, period. And that question proves it.

 

Once you're out of that box, then the blinders come off and you're able to consider the evidence for Intelligent Design.

[questor]

Paultrr, you are correct. we will not be able to answer the questions until our technology

enables us to probe down to the elemental level where the answers lie. that will probably not occur in our lifetime. until then, science will have to content itself with conjecture. scientists need to divorce themselves of the notion that all the answers are known, and realize there are many examples that point toward INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

[C1ay]

I agree completely. Let's throw evolution out!!

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

 

Sure, there are some theories based on that theory of evolution that should be questioned. The evidence certainly does not exist that a claim that whales evolved from bears can be supported as truth. Do you really think though that the crocodiles of the cambrian period did not evolve into the present day species of crocodiles? There is plenty of evidence that evolution is at least one mechanism of speciation. It is not a theory of the origin of life. It does not claim any particular beginning for any of the species we think it is responsible for. Species with long records like the crocodile go back to a point before we know. Just because we do not know the origin of a species does not mean we should ignore the evolution we know has occured within that species line.

 

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else (can't remember who) on this forum. I think everyone should believe what's true and reject what's false. Whoever I was responding to told me that nobody here was telling me I shouldn't believe in I.D. Well, sorry, but that's a load of bull. If you think I.D. is false, and you have any respect at all for the truth, then you should convince me to reject it!! I think I should be free to believe what I want, but I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do any of you? We should be free to believe as we see fit, but we should all realize that something is true and it's up to us to figure out what.

 

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true. Yes, you should be completely free to believe whatever you want but that doesn't make you right and someone else wrong unless you can prove their theory to be absolutely false. Just because there are some theories based on evolution that should be questioned does not prove the whole theory to be absolutely false. You've provided no evidence in this forum thus far that all of evolution is absolutely false or that ID is absolutely true.

 

So to be totally honest, I'm telling you that you should reject evolution. That doesn't mean I think you should be forced to reject it, and it doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to accept evolution even though it is false. It simply means that I'm convinced it's false and that I have enough respect for the truth and enough respect for people (not wanting them to be misled) that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't want people to feel threatened at all, but I don't want people to accept what is false. If people insist on doing just that, then fine… that's their business.

 

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so. Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

 

With respect to religious beliefs, seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that either one religion is true, or all of them are false; just our own personal fairy tales. If it's the latter, then we're all lying to ourselves and we ought to stop. If it's the former, then we all ought to be prepared to deal with the possibility that we're wrong, because if only one religion is true, then all others are necessarily false.

 

I hope you catch the nuances here. I'm as much in support of freedom of religion as anyone. Believe what you want, ultimately it's your business. But I'm not going to blow smoke up peoples' posteriors and say that I'm not telling them they shouldn't believe in evolution. Not only am I telling you you shouldn't believe in evolution, but I'm telling you why.

 

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

 

I've raised several key problems regarding evolution and particularly methological naturalism to several of you numerous times, and I have not heard one answer to explain those problems away. My comments are essentially ignored or I'm simply told I'm wrong.

 

So you've raised a few questions. That doesn't make a theory hogwash just because no one answered your questions. I dare you to disprove only one of my questions above, i.e. "Can you prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species?" So you have some questions about this or that, no one's obligated to answer them. It's quite easy to come up with questions that have no answer but that proves nothing. Try answering the questions it would take to disprove any theory and your work will never end.

 

I'll ask you, and anybody else: If, in the name of science, we restrict our explanations of natural phenomena to those that are "natural", when will we ever get to the "first cause"? If we do find a "first cause" that is "natural", then don't we have to find a natural explanation for it as well? And if that's true, then it's not really the "first cause", is it? How would you answer this? Does this not call into serious question methodological naturalism's validity as (an alleged) governing philosophy of science? Is it really me being illogical here?

 

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want. If your crowd wants to explore the possibility that life as we know it was originally designed by some force that we cannot understand then have at it, just don't expect others to join your search that have their own searches that they choose to follow. Seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that any "first cause" is unknown and may never be known, period. For all we know the first cause of life on this planet may be a transference of life from someplace distant in the universe by some means we are incapaple of understanding, that began billions of years or more before our solar system even formed. A complete, untraceable history to your first cause. To my knowledge no one has claimed that naturalism is absolutely the only explanation for everything. A majority choose to follow that vein in their search and that should be their choice to do so as it is yours in your search.

 

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?