Jump to content
Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince Forum

Intelligent Design


MaxFly

Recommended Posts

Yes, Occam's Razor does get used frequently in that regard, often inaccurately. The point of bringing up Occam's razor is that it's a pretty good idea to exaust our ideas on some given topic before throwing up our hands and saying "the creator(s) did it." Evolution is far from exausting it's ideas.
While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account.

The Theory of Evolution was at its high point when Darwin proposed it. It was quickly embraced by the science community as viable, but the more we found out about the world, the less our model became viable. We found things that seems to be consistent with the model, and we found things that were inconsistent. Scientists won't say that what we know now doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer... they'll say that we don't know everything, so lets not jump to conclusions... Those are two different things, but the latter takes predominance.

It's too bad that the latter seems to only be mentioned when the former is brought up. Apart from the debate, the average student is more likely than not to think that our current model of evolution explains everything. If at the very least, the idea of intelligent design is a way to keep evolution honest, so be it... it seems to be the only way that the shortcomings and inconsistensies of evolution will be acknowledged.

Yes, the irony is very entertaining. Though, while there's no proof of another earth like planet, there's at least some proof of the existance of life.

Other than our planet? Are you referring to the existence of amino acids found at meteorite impact sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Occam's Razor does get used frequently in that regard, often inaccurately. The point of bringing up Occam's razor is that it's a pretty good idea to exaust our ideas on some given topic before throwing up our hands and saying "the creator(s) did it." Evolution is far from exausting it's ideas.

While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account.

The Theory of Evolution was at its high point when Darwin proposed it. It was quickly embraced by the science community as viable, but the more we found out about the world, the less our model became viable. We found things that seems to be consistent with the model, and we found things that were inconsistent. Scientists won't say that what we know now doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer... they'll say that we don't know everything, so lets not jump to conclusions... Those are two different things, but the latter takes predominance.

You are seriously over estimating the amount of unexplained phenomenon and under estimating the amount of explained phenomenon.

Yes, the irony is very entertaining. Though, while there's no proof of another earth like planet, there's at least some proof of the existance of life.

Other than our planet? Are you referring to the existence of amino acids found at meteorite impact sites?

I was joking about the "some" proof of life, I was referring to life on earth. Last I read about the impact sites they where not conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Occam's Razor does get used frequently in that regard, often inaccurately. The point of bringing up Occam's razor is that it's a pretty good idea to exaust our ideas on some given topic before throwing up our hands and saying "the creator(s) did it." Evolution is far from exausting it's ideas.

While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account.

Sure, it doesn't take into account the possability that the universe is on a turtles back. That's because we have no way to prove that one way or another. We have no way to prove one way or another that the fossils we've found are all the animals there have ever been, but it seems likely that there have been more. We have not yet been able to prove what circumstances the first self replicating organism came into existance and what it's make up is. However, there are a lot of reasonable ideas, and the knowledge of that situation is growing.

As for interminable, it's only been, what, 150 years or so? That's a long way from how long it took to figure out things like the orbit of the earth. I would say we're no where close exausting all ideas. And it's not just "admirsable" to exaust every theory, that's how science works. You keep looking for a valid explanation until you find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are seriously over estimating the amount of unexplained phenomenon and under estimating the amount of explained phenomenon.

There are a lot of theories, but explanations and theories are not the same.

The goal of my previous post was to point out that evolution is being taught as more of an explanation rather than as the theory it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are seriously over estimating the amount of unexplained phenomenon and under estimating the amount of explained phenomenon.

There are a lot of theories, but explanations and theories are not the same.

The goal of my previous post was to point out that evolution is being taught as more of an explanation rather than as the theory it really is.

There are many "theories" being taught in school, should we stop teaching them all? You may be aware, there's actually a few little wrinkles in Newtons laws of gravity, should those be removed as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it doesn't take into account the possability that the universe is on a turtles back. That's because we have no way to prove that one way or another. We have no way to prove one way or another that the fossils we've found are all the animals there have ever been, but it seems likely that there have been more. We have not yet been able to prove what circumstances the first self replicating organism came into existance and what it's make up is. However, there are a lot of reasonable ideas, and the knowledge of that situation is growing.

As for interminable, it's only been, what, 150 years or so? That's a long way from how long it took to figure out things like the orbit of the earth. I would say we're no where close exausting all ideas. And it's not just "admirsable" to exaust every theory, that's how science works. You keep looking for a valid explanation until you find one.

No it doesn't take into account the possibility that the universe is on a turtle's back... you are absolutely correct. However, is there anything that would lead us to considering that possibility? The simple answer is no. On the other hand, the specificity and order in nature does point to the possibility of an intelligent designer. I know you're joking... but I saw an opening to reiterate that point, and I couldn't refuse.

As for "interminable." I was speaking to the future, not the past, and asking when, if ever, we will exhaust all theories. There will always be a theory that will put the idea of an intelligent designer on the back (bunsen...) burner. It is really our way of saying "Well let's not deal with this possibility until science forces us to do so" knowing full well that we will always be able to find a way to ignore the possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't take into account the possibility that the universe is on a turtle's back... you are absolutely correct. However, is there anything that would lead us to considering that possibility? The simple answer is no. On the other hand, the specificity and order in nature does point to the possibility of an intelligent designer. I know you're joking... but I saw an opening to reiterate that point, and I couldn't refuse.

The fact that the universe is here points to the possibility of a god. The fact that I'm incredibly good looking points to the possibility of a god who loves me. The fact that Bush is in the white house points to the possibility of a god hates us all. It's not a question of is this all possible, it's a question of evidence, experiments, scientific process, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many "theories" being taught in school, should we stop teaching them all? You may be aware, there's actually a few little wrinkles in Newton's laws of gravity, should those be removed as well?

Theories should definitely be taught, but at the same time, they should be treated as theories and taught as such.

Also, yes, there are a few kinks in Newton's Laws of Gravity, a few of which Einstein's theory of gravitation addresses. However, it's important to note that while there may still be nuances in Newton's Laws yet to be fully explained, his formula has proven to be for the most part accurate... We build things and send things into orbit based on his formula. The nuances in Newton's laws of gravity are a far cry from all the work we still have to do in researching evolution.

But you kind of help me make my point. Would it not be of benefit to students to address the wrinkles in Newton's Laws?

It's like when they teach you about atoms in 3rd grade for the first time. They tell you that atoms have a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons and that the nucleus is surrounded by energy rings where electrons revolve around the nucleus. For general 3rd grade purposes, they have told you all you need to know for a rudimentary understading of the composition of an atom, but they haven't told you that electron energy levels are more complex than you have been led to believe. You'll get to that at some point in junior high or high school.

The problem with the current teaching of evolution is that students rarely get to that more complex level of the subject where they encounter a full understanding. They leave thinking that evolution explains everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for "interminable." I was speaking to the future, not the past, and asking when, if ever, we will exhaust all theories. There will always be a theory that will put the idea of an intelligent designer on the back (bunsen...) burner. It is really our way of saying "Well let's not deal with this possibility until science forces us to do so" knowing full well that we will always be able to find a way to ignore the possibility.

If you are referring to dealing with the possibility of an intelligent designer, deal with it in a way that goes along with science, not ignores it. Instead of launching unwarrented attacks on evolution, get into agreement with science and put the question where it belongs, at the pre big bang point. The laws of the universe are very specific, if they where much different, the universe would be dramatically different, if it existed at all. This is more along the lines of a possible argument for intelligent design, not if life planted in a certain state. Go further, maybe it was intended for life to develope on earth, maybe the designer orchistrated the big bang so that it would occur. These questions go beyond what science can understand instead of against what science understands. Of course, when/if science understands that stuff, there will be people claiming that it doesn't....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't use it in sweden, they do talk about it during religion classes, but not as a scientific fact... That's to controversial.. and wrong.

The school system in Sweden is about educating people on facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theories should definitely be taught, but at the same time, they should be treated as theories and taught as such.

Also, yes, there are a few kinks in Newton's Laws of Gravity, a few of which Einstein's theory of gravitation addresses. However, it's important to note that while there may still be nuances in Newton's Laws yet to be fully explained, his formula has proven to be for the most part accurate... We build things and send things into orbit based on his formula. The nuances in Newton's laws of gravity are a far cry from all the work we still have to do in researching evolution.

But you kind of help me make my point. Would it not be of benefit to students to address the wrinkles in Newton's Laws?

It's like when they teach you about atoms in 3rd grade for the first time. They tell you that atoms have a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons and that the nucleus is surrounded by energy rings where electrons revolve around the nucleus. For general 3rd grade purposes, they have told you all you need to know for a rudimentary understading of the composition of an atom, but they haven't told you that electron energy levels are more complex than you have been led to believe. You'll get to that at some point in junior high or high school.

The problem with the current teaching of evolution is that students rarely get to that more complex level of the subject where they encounter a full understanding. They leave thinking that evolution explains everything.

Lol, that's a problem with education in the US in general, not at all specific to evolution. I would agree, teach more about evolution, teach about wrinkles (across the board), teach that science isn't always perfect, that it's an on going process, but one that has produced numerous benifits and accurately described numerous things.

However, still, do not teach ID, at least in science. It is not a scientific theory. If you want it taught, put it in a theology class or a religion class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the universe is here points to the possibility of a god. The fact that I'm incredibly good looking points to the possibility of a god who loves me. The fact that Bush is in the white house points to the possibility of a god hates us all. It's not a question of is this all possible, it's a question of evidence, experiments, scientific process, etc...

So herein lies the debate. I guess it's a point of perspective and we've come around full circle to the very beginning of this discussion. Some believe that science has nothing to do with an Intelligent Designer because there is no forseeable way to carry out experiments or provide evidence of Its existence. Other's will agree that science cannot prove that an Intelligent Designer exists, but will add that this is not the same thing as saying that science has nothing to do with intelligent design. They'll point out that nature and the physical world, which is observed through science, can point to the possibility of Its existence. Though it's not conventional science, it is reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the universe is here points to the possibility of a god. The fact that I'm incredibly good looking points to the possibility of a god who loves me. The fact that Bush is in the white house points to the possibility of a god hates us all. It's not a question of is this all possible, it's a question of evidence, experiments, scientific process, etc...

So herein lies the debate. I guess it's a point of perspective and we've come around full circle to the very beginning of this discussion. Some believe that science has nothing to do with an Intelligent Designer because there is no forseeable way to carry out experiments or provide evidence of Its existence. Other's will agree that science cannot prove that an Intelligent Designer exists, but will add that this is not the same thing as saying that science has nothing to do with intelligent design. They'll point out that nature and the physical world, which is observed through science, can point to the possibility of Its existence. Though it's not conventional science, it is reasonable.

There's a difference between those two perspectives though. The first perspective is based in science, the other is based in religion. If you want to apply the latter argument, it could be applied to most episodes of the X-Files. Should we teach that in classrooms as well? Or even further, it's me! I'm the one responsible for the gaps in fossils and how life got on earth. I did it, yep, it's me. I would like it taught in all class rooms that Schnazz put life on earth. There's just as much evidence of that as there is of ID, a smidge more actually, since I'm here claiming it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, still, do not teach ID, at least in science. It is not a scientific theory. If you want it taught, put it in a theology class or a religion class.

I'm not so much for teaching it as I am for adding the disclaimer that evolution is not the be all and end all. Such a disclaimer is well within the realm of a science class. I wouldn't go as far as teaching creationism as that certainly has more to do with theology. The case I mentioned at the beginning that is being carried out is about a disclaimer in science books asserting that evolution is "a theory, not a fact." By all interpretations, this is true, but strangely, people don't want to acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between those two perspectives though. The first perspective is based in science, the other is based in religion. If you want to apply the latter argument, it could be applied to most episodes of the X-Files. Should we teach that in classrooms as well? Or even further, it's me! I'm the one responsible for the gaps in fossils and how life got on earth. I did it, yep, it's me. I would like it taught in all class rooms that Schnazz put life on earth. There's just as much evidence of that as there is of ID, a smidge more actually, since I'm here claiming it.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. You can't say that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer (for the time being, it does), so to avoid taking a stance on whether it does or doens't, the realm of the conversation is shifted to religion.

I don't understand what you were trying to say with the latter points... Could you clarify?

Edited by MaxFly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...