The Origin of Speciousness

[numeral2_5]

I've got to say this is a stupid argument; evolution is not inherently an atheistic idea, it could very well deist.

[August]

I've got to say this is a stupid argument; evolution is not inherently an atheistic idea, it could very well deist.

Nice insult. Then I would have said it was an a-deist argument.

[sandy_mcd]

If God only set things in motion, then what reason does anyone have to believe that He is still active today? ...
It essentially means that God becomes a god of the gaps, that everything not explained by evolutionary theory is ascribed to God. It also denies certain central Biblical teachings, like that of purpose.

I don't believe God is routinely intimately involved in causing everyday worldly events today or in the past. Big hurricanes are not necessarily God's judgement. This leaves not a God of the gaps but a God of faith. [The designer in ID is a god of the gaps.]
When my car breaks down, I don't know how to fix it. But the fact that people can fix it means to me that someone must know how it works, so I can believe that people know how cars work even if I don't understand. Likewise, if the pope, the Catholic Church (or some of it), and most religious biologists don't have problems with evolution, than neither do I.
I can even envision that this apparent "set in motion"/"activeness-purpose" conflict is similar to the apparent "free will"/"all-knowing God" conflict.

[August]

To address August:

The reason I brought up Darwin's beliefs is simply because many ID proponents argue that ID is not "creationism in a tux" and that it doesn't require the "Christian God"... the reason many people come to this conclusion is because many of the people who developed and try to prove ID, are in fact, Christians. One could argue that ID, like you said of Darwin, has "far-reaching philosophical and religious implications". If ID proponents don't want this conclusion to be made (i.e. they want the beliefs of the developers left out of it) I feel the same should be done for Darwin.

I don't know that there is a particular religion that is congruent with my personal beliefs... so to identify "which God I am referring to that has an intimate relationship with pondscum" probably is not possible. This probably has to do with the fact that I do not regard the Bible as always being literal fact, so when people argue stories in the Bible with me I don't always agree. So there probably is not an established religion that suits my particular beliefs. I have my own beliefs and faith. So, sorry I can't address your question further.

The point is that we cannot seperate the philosophical implications from science. If we could, why is there such a strong resistance to ID? And why do atheists quote evolution as part of their belief system?

In my opinion, it is impossible to seperate the two, each person has a life philosophy, look at how you for example had to invent a God that fits your philosophy. Those life philopsophies influences everything one does, including scientists.

[August]

If God only set things in motion, then what reason does anyone have to believe that He is still active today? ...
It essentially means that God becomes a god of the gaps, that everything not explained by evolutionary theory is ascribed to God. It also denies certain central Biblical teachings, like that of purpose.

I don't believe God is routinely intimately involved in causing everyday worldly events today or in the past. Big hurricanes are not necessarily God's judgement. This leaves not a God of the gaps but a God of faith. [The designer in ID is a god of the gaps.]
When my car breaks down, I don't know how to fix it. But the fact that people can fix it means to me that someone must know how it works, so I can believe that people know how cars work even if I don't understand. Likewise, if the pope, the Catholic Church (or some of it), and most religious biologists don't have problems with evolution, than neither do I.
I can even envision that this apparent "set in motion"/"activeness-purpose" conflict is similar to the apparent "free will"/"all-knowing God" conflict.

So, if the Pope renounces evolution will you stop believing in it? What about those biologists who don't believe in it?

You also still have not explained how you reconcile God and evolution, except to say that you believe in random events, i.e. God is not omniscient or omniipotent. Which parts of the Bible are valid and which not, since you apparently want to choose to believe some parts and others not.

I guess we believe in different Gods then.

[sandy_mcd]

So, if the Pope renounces evolution will you stop believing in it? What about those biologists who don't believe in it?

It depends on why.
1) If it just a new pope whose personal opinion is that he doesn't believe, then probably not.
2) If there is some reason (theological or other), then most likely.

[If a majority of biologists or young biologists reject evolution, than I assume I would as well, since I am deferring to their expertise. But the fact that a small minority presently reject means little; there will almost always be some people who disagree with the majority on any question.]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The fun part is it's a growing minority.

[Kurieuo]

[If a majority of biologists or young biologists reject evolution, than I assume I would as well, since I am deferring to their expertise. But the fact that a small minority presently reject means little; there will almost always be some people who disagree with the majority on any question.]

Scott Adam's does this also... but he also highlights some problems in doing this in his article on the ID debate.

The other problem for people like me is that the “good” arguments on both sides are too complicated for me to understand. My fallback position in situations like this has always been to trust the experts — the scientists — of which more than 90%+ are sure that Darwin got it right.

The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That's no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?

Here's where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilb ... t_des.html

Now I don't know how much of a true representation this is of what ID proponents say, but there seems to be some reasonableness to what Scott says.

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You're quoting the maker of Dilbert? SWEET.

[sandy_mcd]

Now I don't know how much of a true representation this is of what ID proponents say, but there seems to be some reasonableness to what Scott says.

But he doesn't really trust anyone, as evidenced in this followup:

I would consider credible anyone who didn't have a preconcieved notion or a financial/career incentive. When you're talking about the cause of life itself, I submit that no one can pass that test (especially people who write books on the topic). That has been my point all along.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

So....?[/img]

[Kurieuo]

Now I don't know how much of a true representation this is of what ID proponents say, but there seems to be some reasonableness to what Scott says.

But he doesn't really trust anyone, as evidenced in this followup:

I would consider credible anyone who didn't have a preconcieved notion or a financial/career incentive. When you're talking about the cause of life itself, I submit that no one can pass that test (especially people who write books on the topic). That has been my point all along.

Actually he stills trusts the 90%+ of scientists as he notes in the same article:

My fallback position in situations like this has always been to trust the experts — the scientists — of which more than 90%+ are sure that Darwin got it right.

He finishes by noting:

I'd be surprised if 90%+ of scientists are wrong about the evidence for Darwinism. But if you think it's impossible, you've lived a sheltered life.

I'm certain many would object to someone unquestioningly accepting the authority of the RCC on all theological matters. Luther was fighting against a majority belief of "expert Christians" in his time. How is accepting of the authority of the majority of scientists regarding Darwinism without question any different? No. I prefer to look into matters on my own, and come to my own rational conclusions as I see people all too often follow a sheep mentality.

Kurieuo