by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
jerry,
i would consider myself an agnostic. i consider the slight possibility that this universe came into existence not by chance but by design. but than again the design is pretty lousy.
the idea of a personal god is however completely rediculous. has there ever been a mircale? was there ever a person that was guided or protected by this god? was it the christian or the muslim or the jewish god? its all baloney!
This is dishonest. The reason is we do not usually use the search words he used "intelligent design" as that would almost guarantee the rejection of an article before it was even read!
So, by deliberately not using the correct term for your scientific platform when submitting papers you are being… honest?
That aside, assuming that what you say is true and reasonable, why is ID held in such low regard?
Obviously I can answer this using articles discussing the problems with ID, such as I have already posted, but what is your opinion?
You are suggesting a conspiracy, and as I am sure you will know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. To show there was a genuine conspiracy over ID you would have to demonstrate the reasons cited by those objecting to ID are unreasonable, as if they are (as mainstream scientists say) rejected on the basis of them being unsound in conception, then this is reasonable.
Thank you for a straight answer regarding where the designer came from. ID presupposes the existence of something that requires a designer. Modern theories of cosmology seem not to require an equivalent original cause, but for 99.9r% of the population are indistinguishable from religious texts in Sanskrit.
But, whereas the ‘high priests’ of ID or theology have to shrug when asked where the designer came from, the ‘high priests’ of naturalistic origins at least have a working theory of initial origins. That is different from being right, but at least the argument used for their primal cause doesn’t invalidate all their other arguments.
ID also fares very badly on its “set pieces”, like irreducible complexity, and bases it’s initial foundation on rather shaky foundations (see Realist’s post above). It also has to use the same arguments used cross culturally for millennia regarding the lack of direct evidence for a designer, which is a little worrying. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it opens up whole visas of unanswerable questions for any theist suggesting a creator god in the manner of the Judaeo/Christo/islamic one.
Given a toss up between two paradigms, both with un-provable origins, I select the one where the mechanism is most attested to by the evidence, rather than a ‘make-fit’ solution that allows ancient un-provable superstitions to be maintained, as the logical absurdities that run on from retaining those superstitions are unmaintainable. It’s simply more logical to believe in naturalistic process, from the logical absurdities of the designer argument to the plausibility of a naturalistic model being enhanced at so many levels by natural processes conforming to its descriptions
This is pure name calling
Err, you’ve not covered yourself with roses on the other thread in that regard…
ID is the basis of SETI,
Explain. I see no need of a connection between SETI and ID. If ID was proved false tomorrow (but, conveniently it's unfalisiable, which is why it's not regarded as that scientiifc in many circles), then SETI would be un changed in any way.
The problem is, in attacking ID you are attacking most every scientist who believes in a personnel God of some type (and many who just believe in a god of any type). This includes a lot of people including theistic evolutionists. It also includes our current president and many in his administration. (I think I opened up a can of worms here)
I disagree. First of all, and it gets so tiresome saying this, it is the THEORIES that are attacked, not the people. Secondly you are making “Believes in god” equivalent to “Accepts intelligent design”, which is a fallacy. Thirdly, the President’s opinion is irrelevant here; argument from authority, how many logical fallacies is that today?
There’s more I could comment on regarding your posts in response to Realist, but Realist is more than capable of looking after himself in this respect and I have a conference call with
Abaddon: I have followed this thread off and on for a while, now. I would like to thank you for your refreshing common sense in battling an issue that I consider to be far too frustrating and pointless. Hopefully, some day, you will get through.
RunningMan; thanks for the comments. As to 'getting through'... well, I think the paradigms used might exclude that.
Example;
Now, 1. is an article of faith and the argument in 2. does not address the issues that concern many people who are against abortion for the reasons specified in 1.
2. is a scientific viewpoint, and the argument in 1. does not address the issues that concern many people who are not against abortion for the reasons specified in 2.
It's much the same with this debate.
the idea of a personal god is however completely rediculous. has there ever been a mircale? was there ever a person that was guided or protected by this god? was it the christian or the muslim or the jewish god? its all baloney! This is what I thought for years. More experience and time can change one greatly if we let it. I encourage you to study all three faiths in detail.
So, by deliberately not using the correct term for your scientific platform when submitting papers you are being… honest?
The fact is, a scientific paper should be accepted on the basis of its science, not the personal religious beliefs of the author (In America that is the law in employment) but the fact that this is this is not in fact the case means that if one wants to survive in academia one avoids words that trigger prejudice. Sad but true. Look at happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. I know many leading ID supporters that are scientists that are in the closet but became very famous. They recognize the reality and need to support their family so try to avoid prejudice. Some come out only when they become successful. Note the following case.
Speaking of Birthdays
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
May 9, 2003
A Big Brain Interprets the Big Bang
Dr. Arno Penzias was frustrated. While adjusting an antenna for a radioastronomy experiment, he and Dr. Robert Wilson encountered a noise that wouldn’t go away—no matter what direction they rotated their directional antenna. Eventually they realized they had discovered "cosmic background radiation," which many physicists now call "the radio echo of creation."
At the time, many scientists scoffed at the words in Genesis, "In the beginning." They assumed that the universe had existed from eternity past.
And some scientists prefer the notion that the universe has no beginning. Aristotle philosophized that matter was eternal, and tradition dies slowly—even with strong contrary evidence. More importantly, if the universe did have a beginning, that implies a Creator—and many people prefer not to believe that.
But Dr. Penzias says, "The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a ‘religious’ belief." That is, people who refuse to consider the evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas are following a "dogma" in the most stubborn sense of the word.
In an article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Penzias told Dr. Jerry Bergman of the American Scientific Affiliation, "I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like. . . . In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must . . . assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well."
Penzias, a Nobel Prize winner, added, "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."
Another word that shows up in discussions of whether or not the universe had a beginning is singularity. This interpretation visualizes all the matter of the universe concentrated in a "singular" location of infinitesimally small size and expanding to form all the galaxies, stars, and planets.
Dr. Penzias says that interpretation fails the test of mathematical physics. During a lecture at Northern Illinois University, he pointed out that when the distance between objects decreases, the gravitational attraction between them increases. So if all the matter of the universe had once been compressed into an infinitesimally small "singularity," the gravitational pull would have been so massive that the matter never would have spread out and formed today’s universe. "It would collapse into a black hole and stay that way."
So what does Penzias think that the Big Bang was? He says the most logical explanation is "a moment of discrete creation from nothing!"
Some have paraphrased the Big Bang as "God spoke, and bang, the universe was created." That’s close to the Psalmist’s statement: "He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."
As we continue to point out on BreakPoint, the Big Bang really points to a Big Brain—to God who has the wisdom and power to create everything that exists.
For further reading and information:
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., "Arno A. Penzias: Astrophysicist, Nobel Laureate," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 1994.
Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, eds., Cosmos, Bios, Theos (Open Court Publishing, 1992). See chapter titled, "Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far."
Denis Brian, Genius Talk: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995). The Arno Penzias chapter is on pages 153-177.
Gordy Slack, "When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn’t an Atheist," Mother Jones, November/December 1997.
"Penzias and Wilson’s Discovery is One of the Century’s Key Advances," Lucent Technologies, rev. February 2001.
Read "Arno Penzias—Autobiography" on the Nobel Foundation website.
Gregg Easterbrook, "What came before creation?" U.S. News & World Report, July 20, 1998.
"Physicists Puzzle Over Unexpected Findings in ‘Little’ Big Bang," University of Rochester News, November 11, 2002.
The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico is encouraging citizens to contact the governor and their legislators to comment on the newly revised science standards for education.
Al Dobras, "It’s All about Luck: Avoiding Intelligent Design at All Costs," BreakPoint Online, April 7, 2003.
Roberto Rivera, "Gods and Peanuts: Reason and Revelation," BreakPoint Online, May 22, 2002.
William A. Dembski, "Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design," BreakPoint Online, June 24, 2002.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 020627, "Considering the Evidence: Intelligent Design in the Twenty-First Century."
That aside, assuming that what you say is true and reasonable, why is ID held in such low regard? Surveys of scientists find very few have any idea what it ID is and most have not read a single book written by an ID supporter. Certain leading scientists such as S.J. Gould have spent much of their career pushing their world view and have been very successful, partly due to their position in science. Most scientists just repeat the incorrect information these people spout without investigating it for themselves. On the other hand, ID has grown enormously recently. I am part of a set of closed discussion groups that has over 300 Ph.D. level scientists, many at leading Universities such as Princeton, involved. We have many top scientists involved and I have no doubt that the movement will grow. The atheists and non theists, on the other hand, are often viscous and are doing everything they can, honest or dishonest, to stop us. They have millions of tax dollars that they can use to do this, whereas we have very little money support except our salary.
That aside, assuming that what you say is true and reasonable, why is ID held in such low regard? I have read tons of this material and own most every anticreationists book I have been able to find (about 60). Reading this material tells me my ideas are valid as they do not have a valid scientific case, only some lose ends to tie up in the theory. I also an very intrigued as to why and how one can hold a belief that does not have scientific support. In this regard my witness experience helps. Look how many are hanging on! It is hard to change world views. I know, I changed twice (I was a Witness from age 7 to 30 or around there, so had no choice when young but to leave was not easy).
Explain. I see no need of a connection between SETI and ID. If ID was proved false tomorrow (but, conveniently it's unfalisiable, which is why it's not regarded as that scientiifc in many circles), then SETI would be un changed in any way. I do not mean to be unkind, but in my job I have to spend much time to determine if students know the material and it is my guess here that you have not read a single book by ID supporters. If you did, you would know ID theory is the basis of both sciences. Also, it is just not true that ID is unfalisiable. Even Ron Numbers covers this very well (see his book the creationists).
jerry,
are you suggesting that there are/were indeed miracles? did god really part the sea for moses? are there really virgins waiting for holy warriers in heaven as allah promises? did satan really tempt jesus in the dessert? how about buddism? is that religion baloney or is it true as well?
secondly...SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has absolutely NOTHING to do with ID. the idea is that extraterrestrials on our technological level could be detected by radiotelescopes. such a civilization would have come into existance just like ours...i.e. via evolution.
realist
PS: thanks for correcting my spelling...if you ever need help with german let me know
