Intelligent Design / Evolution podcast

[fuddam]

What you choose to believe should be your own decision, not one forced on you from birth

The only way NOT to force something ideologically on a child from birth is not to communicate with them, especially via language. The idioms, the very words are pregnant with meaning, AND that meaning is itself subject to interpretation.

Regardless of what beliefs about the world are given to the child, that child will sooner or later have to deal with them, choose to accept, reject, or reinterpret etc.

I could teach the child that there is no God - one day he/she would have to accept/ reject that; likewise I could teach them that there IS a God, and he would again accept / reject, based on their own experiences, logic, context.

you could say that I am teaching the child about something for which there is no proof. There is no proof of the existence of love, only evidence. No proof of meaning, and yet I have meaning. No proof of purpose, and yet I have purpose.

Should I not tell the child about a distant cousin on the other side of the world, living in a jungle, who does not communicate regularly? I have no proof of that person's existence - all can be fabricated.

Further, even if the child could communicate with said cousin, that would not be proof in itself, since we all know video, photos, phone calls, emails are not proof of the cousin's existence. Even to visit the cousin would be open to debate, since our senses are subjective - ever had a hallucination?

So, I give the child my understanding, be it Christian or atheist or otherwise, since I can only be true to what I know and believe. The child will make up his / her mind regardless, once they are old enough.

You will brainwash your kid unavoidably.

[Firebar]

You will brainwash your kid unavoidably.

Very true.

[TeePee]

I didn't say you should teach a child there is no god.

Theres a difference between telling the child that some people believe in a god, and dragging it to church to pray for salvation or be punished.

The ideology children should be taught is to question everything. That way the child can ask the right questions and make up their own mind.

[fuddam]

An example of the kind of brainwashing which I consider abusive, are so called 'Hell Houses'. I'm sure you can read about them on the web, but basically, young children (there are no age limits, the makers think 12 is a good age to watch) are frightened out of their lives by such scenes as graphic fake abortions, where the baby (it's full grown) starts screaming half way through and rivers of blood flow accross the stage. Then the children are told 'This is what happens if you don't believe, pray with us now, and you'll be saved'.
How is that not brainwashing? How is that not abuse?

I'd agree that that method is NOT one I'd allow my children to experience. It's the same reason I don't go about spouting hell and damnation, although I believe them to be true.

I saw Dawkins visit such places in his 'documentary'. The reason was clear - to find people on the fringes, and use them to discredit the entire church / Christendom. In truth, I cringed when I watched it.

Likewise, I could find appalling examples of abuse by the British Empire, and use them to discredit anything good that has ever been done by it. Or use football hooligans to argue that all British youth are scum etc etc.

by the way, I brainwash my kids daily in how much God loves them, and how they should spread that love around. Seems to be working.

[fuddam]

The ideology children should be taught is to question everything. That way the child can ask the right questions and make up their own mind.

couldn't agree with you more

[Byatt]

here's a question: tell me how a motor, operating at speeds of 100,000rpm, can exist inside the cell, and function in order to promote homeostasis in the cell, and develop spontaneously from an earlier life form? and that is just ONE of the complex entities within a cell required for it to function as a cell

Hello, irreducible complexity, oh how I have missed you.

Not having a degree in evolutionary biology, I sadly cannot offer you a theory, however, other fine fellows may well have your answer:

Here's an FAQ on the whole thing with a brief mention of flagellum

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

and in more detail, here's a model for its evolution.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

I would hope that makes it somewhat clearer how complex biological systems may have evolved. No, Evolution does not yet have all the answers, however, it is at least looking, which is more than can be said for the ID movement.

Evolution is clever than you are

Now, please, can we give this a rest? God of the gaps isn't anything new, and even if ID is correct it is absolutely useless as an alternative as it isn't scientific (you don't appear to want to refute this). If you want to peddle your agenda of theism, please pick some other soapbox upon which to stand (perhaps start a different thread, as you seem so intent on turning various ID/Evolution threads into opportunities to preach Christianity).

Also, you may find more open minds if you rise above the tide of what you rightly perceive to be arrogance and abuse, and avoid being quite so holier than thou.

Cheers.

[iranu]

I am well aware of the contribution that eminent Christians have brought to the scientific arena. Even Darwin himself sought to understand the Gods work, however, he was different to creationists and those that believe in ID because he looked at the evidence first and then came to a conclusion culminating in a theory called evolution. We can thank our lucky stars for these people because they are the foundation on which we have built upon. However, my point about Copernicus was not a smug one as you say, it was a valid and truthful point.

My argument about religion not being compatible with science is from a 21st century view point and not one in a time where the majority of scientists followed Christianity. In my view a scientist should not start out from a religious position but one of total neutrality (infact a position of athiest agnosticism - but thats another discussion). It is total folly to hypothesise then believe that theory absolutely when no experiment can back that hypothesis e.g. does God exist.

Secondly I must take issue with the supposition that todays western society owes all it's values to the Christian church. Human beings are social creatures and as such have an in built moral compass. It is extremely difficult for one human being to kill another. Most fighting is merely posturing even in times of war. We have a natural sense of empathy, those that do not tend to be psychopaths. We also do not tend to do things that upset the group whether that be sleeping with your neighbours wife or stealing from a friend. These things are inbuilt and as such do not require to be taught, yet every religion has similar moral tenets. There is good logic as to why this is the case, it promotes harmony within the group and therefore anything that promotes this is beneficial. However, there is a flip side because this means power, power to dictate laws and as we all know power corrupts and absolute power courrupts absolutely. This is shown by how powerful the church has become in the past, how it was run like a business and how it dictated to the populous. You cannot democratically elect God!!

Thirdly with regards to the motor in a cell and other as yet unexplained biological processes and mechanisms.

Just because something is unexplainable, with our current level of knowledge, does it mean that another intellegence must have had a hand in the design? No of course not.

And that really is the crux of the matter. The mysteries of life the universe and everything are slowly being laid bear. I do not believe that we will ever solve the mystery but at each point at which a significant scientific discovery occurs a little bit of "Gods mystery" is taken away.

The big problem with ID is that those who advocate it, really, really, really want it to be the truth. It restores that bit of mystery. It's that mystery that allows faith. No matter if a theory is totally disproven or it's arguments are fundamentally flawed you cannot reason with a religious person because their religion always gets in the way. Faith cannot be compatible with science. That is the reason why I say that religion holds us back, it has pre-conceived ideas eg. God exists.

As someone who has had many an argument with regards to discussions of this and a similar nature I will add one last thing.

The reasoning that people use for a God is usually fundamentally flawed because they either know little or care about science and philosophy. I am not suggesting that is the case here but in general. There is a perfectly good argument for God it just doesn't necessarily fit in with the major religions of the world and that's the problem when religios people discuss the possibility of the existence of God. They do not use the word God literally but within the context of their own religion, therefore they have a pre-conceived picture of what God is and what he/she/it stands for.

A God can quite easily exist. A God could quite easily have created the universe. The big bang as far as we know being the start of it. There is no reason why not, however, it's upto believers to prove that, which is impossible. Where does faith stand once you have proof?

What really annoys me is the Christian fundamentalist creationists who believe that they know the mind of God. Did God create the universe and then sit back and not interfere? Is he always tweaking his creation? Why if God is the creator are so many biological creatures flawed. I have absolutely no use for an appendix but should it become inflamed and burst I will die. Not very intelligent. Why did God create man in his own image? (sounds a little egotistical to me) Does this mean that when we meet aliens that we are superior to them because they have 4 arms?

I have absolutely no problem with an individuals belief, that's their own personal right, however, I do take issue when those people decide what is right for me and try to foist their views or try to justify their belief by presenting ideas such as ID as science.

Why can you not just keep yourselves to yourself? Believe what you want to by all means but please leave the rest of us alone.

[badass]

It seems the general argument for ID in this thread is like this:
Based on our current understanding of science, we cannot find any way that life went from a load of chemicals to a complex single cellular organism. To (some of) us with our current understanding, it is impossible for life to have formed naturally. Its far too complex to have just "formed" from previous chemicals that even together were not alive. Therefore someone/thing must have designed it.

People used to call shooting stars signals from god. Untill we understood how they worked.
Just because we dont understand how something can occur does not mean that something else designed it.
If you do not understand my point, please ask for clarification rather than ignore it.

[fuddam]

Just because we dont understand how something can occur does not mean that something else designed it.
If you do not understand my point, please ask for clarification rather than ignore it.

agreed. take it from a different perspective:

If one knows of the existence of God (closest eg: just as you know when you are in love), then ID is an explanation of things, not a justification for the existence of that same God.

ID will never prove God. I do not try to PROVE his existence. The reason I post various illustrations of His design is not to prove anything, but to get people thinking. It's the bigger picture that I'm interested in.

If you know God personally, then ID is the most logical explanation for how the world is as it is (rather than, for example, a literal interpretation of 6 days as 6 x 24hrs)

If someone simply said "I can't explain the existence of X, therefore there must be a God", I would not say they know who He is, or are (Christian), or are doing anything else other than speculate.

Knowledge of God is a divine revelation, which can occur instantaneously, or over a lengthy period. But if, and once, one experiences it, the ID aspect of existence is self explanatory.

[yamangman]

Didn't the Arch Bishop of Canterbury recently say that Evolution was correct?

[TeePee]

What he correctly said, was that ID and evolution are not competing theories. Evolution is the product of science, ID is 'just obvious after a divine revelation'. Divine revelations happen to me every time I drop too much acid...

[schmunk]

The influential British mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." In his popular and controversial work "Why I Am Not A Christian," Russell leveled the charge that Christianity, in particular, has served as an opponent of all intellectual progress, especially progress in science.1

(1) The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity.3 Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal),4 but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish.

Err, (1) is absolute balls and just spin. Yes, these individuals may have been Christian, but The Christian Church has long opposed any scientific research which in any way questions the traditional 1 God / 7 days view of the world.

These individuals were 'Christian' because they were brought up with Christian dogma, as were all contemporary Europeans, and had no other references to draw upon to question the faith that was thrust upon them from birth. Denouncement of traditional Christian ideas led to persecution from the establishment and the general public, who were all brainwashed with the Christian mores, and didn't know any better. Remember this was the time when 'witches' were burnt on the cross.

A particular example of this is Galileo, who was greatly persecuted for his insistence that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Wikipedia says this of Galileo:

"his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church is taken as a major early example of the conflict of authority and freedom of thought, particularly with science, in Western society"

[Rhyth]

Err, (1) is absolute balls and just spin. Yes, these individuals may have been Christian, but The Christian Church has long opposed any scientific research which in any way questions the traditional 1 God / 7 days view of the world.

These individuals were 'Christian' because they were brought up with Christian dogma, as were all contemporary Europeans, and had no other references to draw upon to question the faith that was thrust upon them from birth. Denouncement of traditional Christian ideas led to persecution from the establishment and the general public, who were all brainwashed with the Christian mores, and didn't know any better. Remember this was the time when 'witches' were burnt on the cross.

A particular example of this is Galileo, who was greatly persecuted for his insistence that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Wikipedia says this of Galileo:

"his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church is taken as a major early example of the conflict of authority and freedom of thought, particularly with science, in Western society"

I agree with all those points shmunk.

Sorry if this offends, however my opinion is that christianity was initially nothing more than an intelligent design in itself, a tool of control. Christianity is now a genral term and spans a huge spectrum of differant beliefs for differant christians.

Each to their own if it harm no other.

[Auran]

fuddam

“If one man believes a foolish thing he is a fool, but if a million people believe a foolish thing..... are they any less fools ?”

In my opinion anyone that believes in God(s) is a fool as there is no physical evidence to support such a belief. Now you could counter that my defence of evolutionary theory is just a foolish, because there is no absolute proof that it is “the truth”. But to be blunt I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in god. I accept that at present it is the best theory science has to offer. You could say that I have a problem with all beliefs, being as they are “not based on evidence”. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against people of faiths or beliefs, I just don’t like them peddling their “wares”. This is not a personal attack on you, as I don’t class you in the same category as the more radical faith elements in our society. But as you posted about ID I felt I had to respond, due to my view that rational individuals should stand between humanity and the false path of religion. Now I could be wrong I accept that, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is the stance I will take. Of course I don’t disagree with some of the principles espoused by religion, good will to all men and so forth. In fact there is a very eloquent passage in the New Testament where Jesus explains to his disciples that they should not seek out followers like hunters, but wait for people to come to them. The analogy being to do with fishermen. Sadly I cannot remember the passage, but I agree with what he says.

Now just because I think that I am right and you are wrong does not mean that I feel superior to you. I am painfully aware of how wrong I could be and accept that, because to quote one of mankind’s greatest philosophers; “Wisest is he who knows he knows not”. I also understand that due to your “relationship” with God you find it hard to comprehend how I cannot see the truth as you do. Again as you can provide me with no evidence I’m not going to accept it as being anything more than chemical interactions within your brain or some other physical phenomena. Perhaps even self-deception, something that humans are very good at doing, especially when other buy into the same lie. Safety in numbers and all that…..

As for the theory that we and apes are descended from a common ancestor, it is not conjecture, that would mean that there is very little evidence to support it. Whereas there is a great deal of evidence to support this facet of evolution. That we do not know exactly how it all fits together is a function of time. As it passes and we investigate our origins, so our understanding will improve. You can’t have everything at once.

Anyway next point; Quote “I get the feeling that this is the real source of the fundamentalist proponents of Materialism's antagonism towards ID. The history of Christianity, right from Genesis, is about a God in pursuit of his people, and their unwillingness to listen or respond to that love. Materialism is just a current example.”

Not being funny but that makes no sense at all, in the context of what I said. My antagonism towards it stems from the fact that ID is a belief, not a scientific theory. If I get time at the weekend I’ll go into this in more detail. Besides having studied science I have also studied the nature of science itself and the philosophies that go along with it, rightly or wrongly. But with reference to your comment, love is just another illusion.

As for Stalin and Mao etc. and how beliefs have caused wars etc. you missed my point, believing is the problem. Religion just happens to be the biggest proponent of this type of thinking. Stalin and Mao believed in what they were doing, that is what made them dangerous.

Finally, apologies if my comment about us creating life appeared to be solely directed at you. I was merely mentioning it as one of the arguments used by some advocates of ID. I’ll do a bit of research into this and provide another example of specious reasoning for us to debate.

[yamangman]

I agree and disagree with that. Wonderfully illustrated by planet earth the other night to be honest. The blind albino Gecko. No eye's, though clearly it once did have. Gills on the outside of it's body.

[badass]

agreed. take it from a different perspective:

If one knows of the existence of God (closest eg: just as you know when you are in love), then ID is an explanation of things, not a justification for the existence of that same God.

ID will never prove God. I do not try to PROVE his existence. The reason I post various illustrations of His design is not to prove anything, but to get people thinking. It's the bigger picture that I'm interested in.

If you know God personally, then ID is the most logical explanation for how the world is as it is (rather than, for example, a literal interpretation of 6 days as 6 x 24hrs)

If someone simply said "I can't explain the existence of X, therefore there must be a God", I would not say they know who He is, or are (Christian), or are doing anything else other than speculate.

Knowledge of God is a divine revelation, which can occur instantaneously, or over a lengthy period. But if, and once, one experiences it, the ID aspect of existence is self explanatory.

In the same way you know the existence of god, Scientologists know that all of the bad feelings in the world are the result of a mass genocide by some alien who then puts the spirits of all of his victims in the volcanoes of earth that were released as man was first around and they then "posses" us all and give us bad feelings.
In the same way a cult member might know that an alien flying saucer is hiding behind some comet visible in the sky and they will all join them if they commit suicide they will join them.
How do you know that jesus was not merely a very convincing man that fortunately preached be good to others, rather than the son of a being there never has been any proof existed, and that everything that has been attributed to him has been shown to be caused by something else?