Intelligent Design: Regarding Science and Religion

Oregon Magazine ^ | January 24, 2006 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

The stars run in their courses, in billions of galaxies, orbited by planets which are orbited by moons, and if they did not do so in ways which are predictable -- that is with many recurring similarities -- science would not exist. Predictability to some degree or other is the foundation of science. Those italics emphasize an extension of previous demands by science, which insisted on absolutes. Quantum physics took that down, and in the process angered Albert Einstein. But, still and all, even in the subatomic world one can safely play the odds. You cannot predict what any given particle will do, but you can predict the general behavior of a large number of particles.

The idea is important to the Science vs. Intelligent Design controversy. Science, like fascism, is about following orders. Science is dogmatic about this and would collapse without the concept.

[WaterDragon]

Very interesting! The end of the article is a zinger!

[plain talk]

ping. This guy lets it all out at the end.

[highball]

Yes, except he keeps confusing the Theory of Evolution with the origins of life and the origin of the universe.

Basic mistake, quite common. But it reveals a pretty profound ignorance.

And someone who makes such a fundamental mistake has a lot of nerve insulting anybody else's IQ....

[wallcrawlr]

This is a quick read...worth it.

Where a Christian's universe is described in historic terms or metaphor, a physicist;s universe is made of numbers. Everything it is and everything it does is contained in a formula made of numbers. Parables and formulas, metaphors and numbers, are all representational. They are artifacts, graphic substitutes for the real thing. Just ways of describing something.

Where the two conflict, as in this case, the scientists say it is infinite, not comprehensible, or simply not known yet. The religionist or non-secular scientist, says that which is ultimate and not known, should be described by what is known, plus logic. Our debate here? Creation happened by accident or it didn't.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[marine86297]

Intelligent Design is the topic of my sons high school debate meets for the next 2 months. He'll be able to use this article, esp. the Stephen Hawking quote.

Bump for son

Semper Fidelis

[papertyger]

Yes, except he keeps confusing the Theory of Evolution with the origins of life and the origin of the universe. Basic mistake, quite common. But it reveals a pretty profound ignorance.

Hardly. The distinction is as gratuitous as that between "choice" and abortion. What it reveals is a rejection of said "distinction."

[highball]

The distinction is as gratuitous as that between "choice" and abortion.

Nonsense. What you're describing are two words for the same thing, with the word choice determined by which side of the issue the speaker takes. Though the words are very different in tone, they both describe the same thing. "Choice" is merely soft-peddling the word "abortion."

The origin of life and the Theory of Evolution are two separate scientific fields of study. To not understand that is to be ignorant. To deny that is to be dishonest. I don't know which of the two this guy is, but it doesn't really matter. Either way, he has given us ample reason to discount what he says.

Why don't creationists take issue with gravitational theory? After all, that doesn't address the origin of matter. If they were consistent with their objections, they would have to fight as hard against the work of Einstein as they do against the work of Darwin.

That they do not speaks volumes of the real agenda.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Why don't creationists take issue with gravitational theory?

Can you expound on this topic or link to articles of interest? This line of questioning sounds interesting.

I would like to see an evolutionist paper explaining current global population density on the earth if man has lived/evolved for millions of years.

Freepgards,

K4

[highball]

Can you expound on this topic or link to articles of interest? This line of questioning sounds interesting.

The same creationists who keep insisting "it's only a theory" don't ever extend such "logic" to other scientific theories. If they were intellectually consistent, they should take issue with such theories as gravitation. Or germ theory, for that matter.

But they never do. Wonder why?

I would like to see an evolutionist paper explaining current global population density on the earth if man has lived/evolved for millions of years.

I'm not sure I really understand what you're driving at.

Are you suggesting that current global population density somehow indicates that the earth isn't millions of years old? As in there should be more humans were that the case? If so, you're going to need to provide some math to demonstrate it. That's a new one.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Part of what is confusing me is the terminology. Gravitational law/theory in what way were you asking the question concerning it, I want to understand your question further.

The extrapolation of population density, or interpolation if you are going backwards, has seemed very interesting to me in the evo/id sense. If standard population growth rate of the world is say 2% per year, and that is offset by death, plague, famine, catastrophy, etc. by say 1.5% then a mean average of population growth could be assumed (scary word, I know) to be one half percent per year.

This in context to the timelines of either evolutionary or ID theory would be an interesting topic, at least to me. That is why i asked about it. I hadn't seen it pop up on a any of the threads.

Thanks for the reply.

K4

[highball]

Part of what is confusing me is the terminology. Gravitational law/theory in what way were you asking the question concerning it, I want to understand your question further.

It's not surpring that the terminology is confusing. Creationist organizations keep trying to muddy the waters with their "it's only a theory" tactic, pretending that "theory" somehow means "guess" in science.

Allow me to clarify the terms in their scientific, not colloquial, definitions.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Now, as far as gravitation is concerned, there is as much if not more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution as there is Gravitational Theory, or Germ Theory. Yet I don't see any posts from creationists claiming that we have to teach any "alternatives" to the theory that germs cause disease. Do you?

If creationists don't insist that those are "only theories", why not?

Now, as far as population goes:

The extrapolation of population density, or interpolation if you are going backwards, has seemed very interesting to me in the evo/id sense. If standard population growth rate of the world is say 2% per year, and that is offset by death, plague, famine, catastrophy, etc. by say 1.5% then a mean average of population growth could be assumed (scary word, I know) to be one half percent per year.

This in context to the timelines of either evolutionary or ID theory would be an interesting topic, at least to me. That is why i asked about it. I hadn't seen it pop up on a any of the threads.

I'm really not sure what conclusions you think could be drawn from that. I think the thing to do is formulate a hypothesis that could be tested by studying the data. What exactly are you trying to say?

[ElectricStrawberry]

So, I started reading with an open mind until I got to...

Science, like fascism, is about following orders

...at which point, this worthless opinion is noted and ignored.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I would like to see an evolutionist paper explaining current global population density on the earth if man has lived/evolved for millions of years

Wrong study....you'd have to go to POPULATION BIOLOGY to understand that, not the Theory of Evolution. Care to rephrase?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

POPULATION BIOLOGY

I'll work with that. Thank you for the info.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

It sounds like you might be able to point me in the right direction. Besides googling it, do you have links or papers associated with the Population biology? I want to study it more because of the numbers involved. With the population decreased incrementally backwards along a chronological time-line that should help with getting closer to an inception point, shouldn't it? I realize there are a myriad of factors involved and my analogy of the growth/death rates was merely as attempt to quantify the question.

Any thoughts?

[ElectricStrawberry]

All I have is my 7 yr old textbook.....BUT, dealing with populations in PRE-recorded history is going to get you a bunch of "estimates". It's estimated that there were 6 million humans around 5000 BC. It's estimated that there were 500 million people around 1500 AD and 1 billion people around 1800 AD. If you plot the population over time, you will see that it is not linear. There are some that want there to be a direct exponential population growth so that they can find an inception point, but complex life in complex ecosystems on a complex planet doesn't follow an equation.

Someone tried it and, mathematically, showed that the first 2 humans could have been around 4300 BC by using the 1800AD estimated population of 1 billion and backcalculating it.....doesn't explain how there are remains found that outdate that by tens of thousands of years....but mathematics is not going to be the answer anyway. Mathematically, that is correct, but the problem is that when the population was small (say a million), the variables that act on that population have huge and longer lasting negative impacts when compared to a larger population (like a billion). Wars, diseases, carrying capacities of the land, droughts, famines...you name it. When the population was small, these things stagnated global population growth. Now, these things don't even make a dent in the total population.....though a lot of little dents may add up.

Actually, now that I think of it, I don't know if you want population biology anyway. It deals more with genetics and genetic fitness (your ability to pass on your genes) more than anything else. Good luck hunting for your answers.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

thanks for the input. As I googled it. it became more apparent that population genetics was what I was looking for. The mathmatics parts will be difficult to decipher becuase, as you say, it's not going to be linear. There were a bunch of sites under the genetics google that i will start to look at.

Again, thanks for your feedback. It's going to keep me busy for a while.