Spirituality
12 May 12
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillDon't be sad Humy. 🙁 Ultimately you were never going to make progress.the same old lies and misconceptions -and made by a laughable moron like yourself.
With that last comment our conversation and our conversing is [b]over. [/b]
The video in question gives a descritpion of a Sony video camera and argues that it can only have come into being through intelligent design. This is not hard to accept but there is plenty of evidence to show that it was made by humans, an intelligent species known to inhabit the Earth for the time being. It compares this to the far more sophisticated human eye and argues by analogy that that also must have an intelligent designer. Persuasive as this analogy may be, it does not survive scrutiny after all. Sometimes Nature is very surprising indeed. But that has to be intelligent scrutiny based at the very least on acknowledging the work done by others in this respect, which is readily accessible even to lay people.
That video is so frustratingly because it clearly and intentionally or at least through wilful ignorance fails to acknowledge over two centuries of debate about the precise topic of the video. The standard argument is not made new and interesting by an elaborate video comparing a Sony Camera to a human eye. Check out the Watchmaker Analogy on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book. The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection put forward an alternative explanation for complexity and adaptation, and so provided a counter-argument to the watchmaker analogy. Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker giving his explanation of evolution.
William Paley put forward the arguments in favour of Intelligent design in 1802, Darwin initially accepted his arguments which he thought beautiful, and they have been subjected to devastating criticism since, not least in Darwin's On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection.
So what is wilfully dishonest is this absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of a whole body of debate and research bearing on the precise topic under discussion, which can only be with the intention to deceive people lacking the educational background or the intellectual honesty to be able to check this out for themselves.
In this debate, wilful ignorance is apparently a badge of pride. Jaywill's reading list is distressing on this topic since he takes it on himself to make such prolonged and verbose contributions and refers the forum so consistently to this type of ill informed, manipulative propoganda. I can understand people lacking educational opportunity or knowledge - for example, children subjected to a creationist education. What I cannot respect is the way proponents of creationist propoganda are prepared to misrepresent and distort the evidence in such a misleading and manipulative manner.
A belief system that depends on lies and misinformation is not worthy of respect.
It is worth remembering that many Christians are not Creationists in this way. The Creationists are not fighting against atheism as they claim, but in favour of a very modern and weird way of thinking that is not representative even of religious thinking in any of the major faiths.
22 May 12
Originally posted by finneganIf you bother to expose yourself to a counter argument by checking my Wikipedia link above, notice that Darwin and others did not regard his theory as at all subversive of religious faith:
The standard argument is not made new and interesting by an elaborate video comparing a Sony Camera to a human eye. Check out the Watchmaker Analogy on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Darwin: "It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. .... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws." From the Origin..
The idea that nature was governed by laws was already common, and in 1833 William Whewell as a proponent of the natural theology that Paley had inspired had written that "with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."[4] By the time Darwin published his theory, liberal theologians were already supporting such ideas, and by the late 19th century their modernist approach was predominant in theology.
In the early 20th century the modernist theology of higher criticism was contested in the United States by Biblical literalists who campaigned successfully against the teaching of evolution and began calling themselves Creationists in the 1920s. When teaching of evolution was reintroduced into public schools in the 1960s they adopted what they called creation science which had a central concept of design in similar terms to Paley's argument. That idea was then relabelled intelligent design, which presents the same analogy as an argument against evolution by natural selection without explicitly stating that the "intelligent designer" was God. The argument from the complexity of biological organisms was now presented as the irreducible complexity argument,[6] the most notable proponent of which was Michael Behe and, leveraging off the verbiage of information theory, the specified complexity argument, the most notable proponent of which was William Dembski.
The watchmaker analogy was referenced in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Throughout the trial, the Reverend William Paley was mentioned several times, naming Paley the "posterboy" of Intelligent Design.[7][8][9] The defense's expert witness John Haught noted that both Intelligent Design and the watchmaker analogy are "reformulations" of the same theological argument.[10] On day 21 of the trial, Mr. Harvey walked Dr. Minnich through a modernized version of Paley's argument, substituting a cell phone for the watch.[11] In his ruling, the judge stated that the use of the argument from design by intelligent design proponents "is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley's argument applied at the cell level"[12] and that the argument from design is subjective.
Most Christians who have a view, then, endorse the theory of Natural selection. The Creationist argument, by contrast, is not accepted by most Christians.
22 May 12
A regards the methods. politics and activities of the Intelligent Design Movement in the US, notice this paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Criticisms_of_the_movement
For example:
According to critics of the intelligent design movement, the movement's purpose is political rather than scientific or educational. They claim the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."[20] Intelligent design is an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to reintroduce the teaching of biblical creationism to public school science classrooms; the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education. As evidence, critics cite the Discovery Institute's political activities, its "Wedge strategy" and statements made by leading intelligent design proponents.
22 May 12
Originally posted by finneganIf all views were allowed to be brought out in to the light, then we could all come to the knowledge of the truth. But censoring certain ideas is contrary to what science should be about. And that is the action being fought for by those wishing to push the idea of evolution on the public. They want no competion.
A regards the methods. politics and activities of the Intelligent Design Movement in the US, notice this paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Criticisms_of_the_movement
For example:According to critics of the intelligent design movement, [b]the movement's purpose is political rather than scientific or educational. ...[text shortened]... ts "Wedge strategy" and statements made by leading intelligent design proponents.
They want to just shove evolution down our throats and our childrens throats.
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am against censorship.
If all views were allowed to be brought out in to the light, then we could all come to the knowledge of the truth. But censoring certain ideas is contrary to what science should be about. And that is the action being fought for by those wishing to push the idea of evolution on the public. They want no competion.
They want to just shove evolution down our throats and our childrens throats.
But if it was never permitted, then everyone could speak at the same time always.
Then we have effectively censored everyone, since no one can be heard.
So we should endeavor to give people a chance to be heard.
This means that each side gets their turn to speak.
When the evolutionist speaks, his turn is called 'science' class.
When the creationist speaks, his turn is called 'religious studies' class.
Presto. Competition still allowed without excessive censorship.
22 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitBut the theory of evolution is a religious theory of the Atheists. The Atheist want to censor the theory of intelligent design because of its religious implications that God exists, not because the theory has no merit.
I am against censorship.
But if it was never permitted, then everyone could speak at the same time always.
Then we have effectively censored everyone, since no one can be heard.
So we should endeavor to give people a chance to be heard.
This means that each side gets their turn to speak.
When the evolutionist speaks, his turn is called 'science' cla religious studies' class.
Presto. Competition still allowed without excessive censorship.
Even Dawkins has said that things in nature look as though they have been designed. I think this should be discussed as part of science studies. If Dawkins and others that are Atheists can see this evidence of design in nature, there should be no objection to mentioning this to the students without mentioning God.
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is your mistake: You think evolution is an atheistic theory. Unfortunately for you, MANY christians accept evolution. Also agnostics accept evolution. Agnostics allow for the possibility of a god, maybe not the one Christians invented but some kind of god.
But the theory of evolution is a religious theory of the Atheists. The Atheist want to censor the theory of intelligent design because of its religious implications that God exists, not because the theory has no merit.
Even Dawkins has said that things in nature look as though they have been designed. I think this should be discussed as part of science ...[text shortened]... nature, there should be no objection to mentioning this to the students without mentioning God.
You can't deny that. You have to get off you Paulistic high horse and admit that evolution is not simply an atheistic ploy to destroy christianity.
22 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, let's aaume I am wrong and evolution is not an atheistic theory. What is wrong with my second paragraph?
Here is your mistake: You think evolution is an atheistic theory. Unfortunately for you, MANY christians accept evolution. Also agnostics accept evolution. Agnostics allow for the possibility of a god, maybe not the one Christians invented but some kind of god.
You can't deny that. You have to get off you Paulistic high horse and admit that evolution is not simply an atheistic ploy to destroy christianity.
Even Dawkins has said that things in nature look as though they have been designed. I think this should be discussed as part of science studies. If Dawkins and others that are Atheists can see this evidence of design in nature, there should be no objection to mentioning this to the students without mentioning God.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHinds
If all views were allowed to be brought out in to the light, then we could all come to the knowledge of the truth. But censoring certain ideas is contrary to what science should be about. And that is the action being fought for by those wishing to push the idea of evolution on the public. They want no competion.
They want to just shove evolution down our throats and our childrens throats.
But censoring certain ideas is contrary to what science should be about.
Actually, science does censor, from science, supernatural explanations. It maintains a separation of church and science this way.
Science does not require that scientist be atheists. Many prominent scientists are theists.
It is just that science looks for natural, not supernatural, explanations.
If you could accept this statement you would be OK with science: "Science looks for how God would have done it, if God had done everything through the Natural Laws that He reveals to us in Nature. This does not mean that God actually did it using these Natural Laws."
23 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPercentage of Americans who believed evolution was true in 2010:
But the theory of evolution is a religious theory of the Atheists. The Atheist want to censor the theory of intelligent design because of its religious implications that God exists, not because the theory has no merit.
Even Dawkins has said that things in nature look as though they have been designed. I think this should be discussed as part of science ...[text shortened]... nature, there should be no objection to mentioning this to the students without mentioning God.
40%
Percentage of Americans who were Atheist/Agnostic/Secular in 2007:
10.3%
23 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think Dawkins means that he can understand why people might (at first) think some natural things are designed. This is not an admission that there is good evidence for the ID (creationist) theory.
Well, let's aaume I am wrong and evolution is not an atheistic theory. What is wrong with my second paragraph?
Even Dawkins has said that things in nature look as though they have been designed. I think this should be discussed as part of science studies. If Dawkins and others that are Atheists can see this evidence of design in nature, there should be no objection to mentioning this to the students without mentioning God.
23 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think us Brits are generally better educated but only moderately so and the statistics still make for some pretty depressing reading.
Its scary how poor the american education system is.
In the United Kingdom, the statistics for year 2009 were:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
“...Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.
The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it.
...”
How can they be “confused about it”? -that is just terrible.
In the United Kingdom, the statistics for religious beliefs in the year 2005 were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
"...
38% belief in a God
40% belief in a spiritual or life force
20% belief in neither a spiritual or life force
..."
Not sure exactly what is meant by belief a “spiritual or life force” but I am totally appalled that so many people believe in such nonsense.
23 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by humyPerhaps you would like to assimilate them into the collective consciousness so that they
I think us Brits are generally better educated but only moderately so and the statistics still make for some pretty depressing reading.
In the United Kingdom, the statistics for year 2009 were:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
“...Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% prefer al or life force” but I am totally appalled that so many people believe in such nonsense.
conform to your evaluations, given time, you might become the Borg queen and they
your minions. People do not believe in evolution, not because of a lack of education,
but because they have evaluated the evidence and are not convinced by the
arguments, do you understand? They reject the arguments on lack of empirical
evidence, that being the fact that almost all mutations are destructive, that the fossil
record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species into another, the
discontinuity between different genus, the unobserved abiogenesis of life from non life
etc etc get it, so stop pretending that people reject it because of ignorance, they reject
it because its a bag of hocus pocus and jiggery pokery, full of conjecture and scientific
dogma, not falsifiable and unobserved.
23 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is a lie. You yourself fully admit to not having evaluated the evidence or even familiarised yourself with the scientific literature on the topic.
People do not believe in evolution, not because of a lack of education,
but because they have evaluated the evidence and are not convinced by the
arguments, do you understand?
They reject the arguments on lack of empirical evidence, that being the fact that almost all mutations are destructive, that the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species into another, the
discontinuity between different genus, the unobserved abiogenesis of life from non life
etc etc get it,
You however reject it for religious reasons alone.
so stop pretending....
The only one pretending is you.