Evidence for God from Science

I think the logic goes something like this:

Your a scientist who has dedicated his/her life to - real science
You just happen to believe in some kind of purpose and plan
therefore...
You just happen to be rendered a threat and disgrace to science

Just adding further, what you say about some ID advocates wanting creation (or theology) taught in science classrooms might be true to those ID proponents who hijacked the original movement and who have a Creationist agenda. However, it is not true of those original to the recent ID movement such as Meyers, Behe, Dembski and other core proponents. I think it is important to realise there are two subgroups within ID.

The Discovery Institute has been very clear regarding its position on teaching ID and that is to refrain and only teach scientific issues with a Darwinian evolution scenario. Thus, you would be in agreement with many core ID proponents, and as I understand for the very same reasons you present (they do not want ID being taught in science classes by Creationists who label themselves as ID advocates and have a theological agenda).

Kurieuo wrote:Just adding further, what you say about some ID advocates wanting creation (or theology) taught in science classrooms might be true to those ID proponents who hijacked the original movement and who have a Creationist agenda. However, it is not true of those original to the recent ID movement such as Meyers, Behe, Dembski and other core proponents. I think it is important to realise there are two subgroups within ID.

Not sure Kurieuo if this was directed at me but either way I think your right about the subgroups within ID. What the Darwinists have successfully done is labeled even those non-creationist ID supporters as nothing more then religious fanatics with agendas. I believe it is more of a mix now and a game of ping pong where the each group gives feedback to another. Creationists to ID proponents, ID proponents to Creationsists etc...yet each group has its filters where one view can be held tolerable to that standard when another can't.

The Discovery Institute has been very clear regarding its position on teaching ID and that is to refrain and only teach scientific issues with a Darwinian evolution scenario. Thus, you would be in agreement with many core ID proponents, and as I understand for the very same reasons you present (they do not want ID being taught in science classes by Creationists who label themselves as ID advocates and have a theological agenda).

The one thing that ID and creationism have more in common then they have less is that they both have direct or indirect objection to the Darwinian paradigm. The recent ID movement has been more appealing to scientific community because it puts together all of science on the table without being afraid to tackle it at its core. While creationism tends to tie religious contexts with science and make sense of them. In the end, the problem for Darwinists is that ID has much more in common with creationism then it does with Darwinian evolution, anything even remotely close to being religious in origins is nothing but a distraction and apparently a threat for the Darwinists, as it doesn't satisfy they're chance and luck happy agendas.

godslanguage wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just adding further, what you say about some ID advocates wanting creation (or theology) taught in science classrooms might be true to those ID proponents who hijacked the original movement and who have a Creationist agenda. However, it is not true of those original to the recent ID movement such as Meyers, Behe, Dembski and other core proponents. I think it is important to realise there are two subgroups within ID.

Not sure Kurieuo if this was directed at me but either way I think your right about the subgroups within ID. What the Darwinists have successfully done is labeled even those non-creationist ID supporters as nothing more then religious fanatics with agendas. I believe it is more of a mix now and a game of ping pong where the each group gives feedback to another.

My post was not directed at you, however nonetheless I think we might agree on quite a bit.

Did you follow my posts no so long ago in the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=102? I am sure you would be interested to read over the discussions there. I also spell out my reasoning for believing two subgroups now exist in ID. I see it is therefore important to distinguish the two (the "creationist ID camp" and what I see as the "core ID camp").

Hi Kurieuo, looks like I missed that thread since I haven't had too much time for the past few months but nevertheless I'll make sure I read it now...I just caught a glimpse and it looks interesting

I agree with alot of the points that were made by you, Gman and Canuckster on the other thread after taking a glimpse there. As long as ID movement doesn't conflate personal beliefs into the scientific criteria and its objectives then even if YEC'rs HIjack it but stick within the boundaries of scientific investigation then I can see it doing fine but I agree it may deteriorate if YEC'rs start to shift the state of the movement by adding words and sentences where they don't really belong in. Not that I have anything against YEC'rs, never had actually I am one of those creationists who don't have a problem with either sides, as I am happy either way if God took a very long time to create me or a very short time. If God took longer then I assume he loves his creation all that much more.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Many, of you know I disagree with much of what was in the trailer, but he does have a point about there being a new dogmatism the scientific circles.

Science is about skepticism, which leads to testing every minute detail of any and all scientific theories, although there is no place for this in high school and undergraduate courses, at the highest levels a healthy skepticism of anything should not be thwarted.

What? You don't think Ben Stein could write on a blackboard?

No, Absolutely not. And taking it even further I doubt you could as well.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And when did you change your view on science? As I recall, you said science's purpose is about searching for truth or something along those lines (and then there was some discussion about that).

Before I argue against whatever it is you are trying to say here, can you jog my memory with a quote?

And here's one more peice of advice. Don't crowd her personal space, if she likes you she'll come in closer, if she moves away you lost points.

"Science is about skepticism"

By that standard ID movement is more then qualified to be legit Science since 50 percent is based on being skeptic of Darwinian evolution. I would say being skeptic is ID's foundation and anything else that stems from that root is a bonus.

I guess being a skeptic isn't that bad is it?

I checked out the blog on the Stein movie. Pretty typical stuff about Darwin and evo's. A good read for someone who has not been exposed to this stuff before. A lot of name calling and very little red meat.

I see a conversation about how ID may be hijacked by creationist. Did I miss something? Where is the conversation about how Darwinism was hijacked by atheist? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Just because we are Christians does not mean we have to accept an unfair position in the argument. Just how many people use the word theory when refering to Darwin? It is taught as fact in most schools.

Maybe this movie will open some eyes and start a national discourse, I sure hope so. I say let the chips fall where they may. If you let the data be your guide then creationist have nothing to worry about and much to gain.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Many, of you know I disagree with much of what was in the trailer, but he does have a point about there being a new dogmatism the scientific circles.

Science is about skepticism, which leads to testing every minute detail of any and all scientific theories, although there is no place for this in high school and undergraduate courses, at the highest levels a healthy skepticism of anything should not be thwarted.

What? You don't think Ben Stein could write on a blackboard?

No, Absolutely not. And taking it even further I doubt you could as well.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And when did you change your view on science? As I recall, you said science's purpose is about searching for truth or something along those lines (and then there was some discussion about that).

Before I argue against whatever it is you are trying to say here, can you jog my memory with a quote?

And here's one more peice of advice. Don't crowd her personal space, if she likes you she'll come in closer, if she moves away you lost points.

I haven't found a quote that's along the lines of what I remember-all I have found is a few quotes where you say science can expand our knowledge, prove things, and find truth (but not ultimate truth).

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... uth#p29514

The validation of hypothesis through experimentation is just one of many tools at our disposal for discovering the world around us. This tool is called science.

The truth is science allows us to increase our knowledge of the world and due to it's experimentalism practical applications can be a result.

The search for the ultimate truth is not within the realm of science. The lofty goal to discover and know everything seems to be an illusory one.

Wall-dog wrote:Think about the impact of macro evolution on ID. Why do they really have to be at odds? Couldn't I just as easily argue that God guided evolution into macro-levels too? All macro evolution would do is create a possible natural explanation. It would still be just as logical to read design in as it would be to read design out.

Sure but can you prove it scientifically? There could be a greater force acting actively right now, but if it can't be tested than science is blind to it. Simple.

But even these statements seem to be a long way off from skepticism. It just seems you're singing two different tunes, so maybe some clarification is all you need.

And are you giving me girl advice? I'm not speaking to any girls at the moment, nor do I think I'll wind up speaking to girl any time soon, so your attempt is about as fruitful as teaching a paralytic how to dance.

You can try to reinterpret those quotes, but if read correctly it all boils down to one thing. The essence of skepticism is the inability to accept something without testing it's merits.

Testing is exactly what science is all about. We test because we are skeptical. Scientific knowledge is the result of countless experiments designed to test ideas.

Keep looking you'll need to find a better quote.

godslanguage wrote:

"Science is about skepticism"

By that standard ID movement is more then qualified to be legit Science since 50 percent is based on being skeptic of Darwinian evolution. I would say being skeptic is ID's foundation and anything else that stems from that root is a bonus.

I guess being a skeptic isn't that bad is it?

Being a detractor is not the same as skepticism.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote:

"Science is about skepticism"

By that standard ID movement is more then qualified to be legit Science since 50 percent is based on being skeptic of Darwinian evolution. I would say being skeptic is ID's foundation and anything else that stems from that root is a bonus.

I guess being a skeptic isn't that bad is it?

Being a detractor is not the same as skepticism.

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree"
- Dr. Leonard George

To the posters earlier: I wasn't saying Jones' decision was an "end-all", but I mean that ID has gone up against the school system many times and they haven't been able to shake the "creationist" affiliation. They will just keep complaining and going to court, I think until they get lucky somewhere

People here also act like Darwinian evolution is set in stone in science. Evolutionary biology is still a young science. Science is still searching and testing the theory of Darwinian evolution. We know "change over time" has occurred and science could very well discover a new mechanism of evolution that isn't Darwinian. We could still find something in the future that becomes the "aha" moment for evolution. So before we "throw out" Darwinian evolution OR start to teach the myriad of creationist and ID theories, we should just do some more research on the evidence at hand and teach the best theory. Keep in mind that this could be 100 years in the future! lol

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote:

"Science is about skepticism"

By that standard ID movement is more then qualified to be legit Science since 50 percent is based on being skeptic of Darwinian evolution. I would say being skeptic is ID's foundation and anything else that stems from that root is a bonus.

I guess being a skeptic isn't that bad is it?

Being a detractor is not the same as skepticism.

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree"
- Dr. Leonard George

touché