Taking back the language

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 7:45 pm

Here's a thought.

Much of the problem of conversation comes from words with loaded meanings. In debating origins, much of the problem comes from the implied philosophy of the words. For instance natural selection implies a process without God. But we can observe species and their reproductive changes that do reflect the environment, empircal results that match the postulates of selection. Now I don't believe this is in any way random, but I do believe it occurs within God's decrees and ecological laws.

Microevolution carries with it emotional and philosophical baggage, so does natural selection. None of us as Christians dismiss God from this process and these words carry with them philosophical implications. From reading through years of posts, many would agree that we do see minor changes in populations.

Should we/Could we proactively change the language? Even if it strts within the Christian community? Populations changing within God given ranges of genetic flexibility seems obviously verbose (vocabulary word!!)

I know that some may not like the tone, I mean, I know this is all from God. But we examine physical laws and establish equations in physics to define how God has established His creation. But we get very touchy when we imply that He may have established "ecological " and population laws. Somehow this implies we are giving in.

Any thoughts? Genetic range within niche?

Intriguing?

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:17 pm

Zoe,

The way evolution is taught in public schools today is completely without any divine intervention, so yes the language needs to be changed to reflect ID in certain cases. As long as students are given both views, I'd be happy with that. Both views are simply theories and neither one can really dominate the field. I fail to see why Darwinian evolutionists are so scared of ID... Why can't we just leave it up to the students to make their own decisions?

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:55 pm

if evolution were true THEN evolutionists would have nothing to be afraid about in having creation taught in the schools. they are afraid because their theory is untrue and they can't prove it.

IT IS NOT about language--it is about what is true or false; right or wrong.

i.d. needs to be scrapped and its adherents need to get back to doing things God's ways and call it creation. it isn't a theory but a fact.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:51 am

Gman wrote:Zoe,

The way evolution is taught in public schools today is completely without any divine intervention, so yes the language needs to be changed to reflect ID in certain cases. As long as students are given both views, I'd be happy with that. Both views are simply theories and neither one can really dominate the field. I fail to see why Darwinian evolutionists are so scared of ID... Why can't we just leave it up to the students to make their own decisions?

I agree, although it is a long road to travel to have i taught in public schools...I would be happy even if we discuss this within Christian circles.

Arch, still waiting for your answers to those points....without you even attempting to break them down, your credibility is lost to me. You claim they are poop and misleading and yet you won;t even address them.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Fri May 04, 2007 7:09 am

Great topic. We all need to agree on what words mean (even if we don't agree on the words, ie evolution) before we can debate them. Otherwise, we're simply all talking about different things. I agree that many arguments result in a misunderstanding, and the ensuing 'fight' is usually fruitless and hurtful, plus it doesn't always reflect the true spirit of Christianity.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Fri May 04, 2007 1:39 pm

How about....

genetic flexibility?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:06 pm

For those who think that evolutionists are 'afraid' of ID or creationism, I think you are misplacing their fears. I know of NO evolutionists who feel that creationishm/ID offers any serious challenge to evolution. If they fear, it is the fear that religion will be taught in school and C/ID is really a disguised attempt to place religious instruction inside of schools.

Lets get one thing clear. C/ID is NOT science. In fact, IMHO, ID is primarily a political movement and every major tenet of ID has been challenged and defeated under judicial review. It is neither falsifiable nor makes predictions and so as a collection of arguments against another theory, is not a theory but a juxtaposition. Further, IMO, the only tenet which stands up to scrutiny is the tenet of specified complexity.

Please understand, I am a Christian who happens to believe the theory of evolution is not correct and so should be taught with caveats and disclaimers, but C/ID does not belong in the science class because it does not present any science.

I welcome your counter-claims.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:32 pm

Forum Monk wrote:For those who think that evolutionists are 'afraid' of ID or creationism, I think you are misplacing their fears. I know of NO evolutionists who feel that creationishm/ID offers any serious challenge to evolution. If they fear, it is the fear that religion will be taught in school and C/ID is really a disguised attempt to place religious instruction inside of schools.

Lets get one thing clear. C/ID is NOT science. In fact, IMHO, ID is primarily a political movement and every major tenet of ID has been challenged and defeated under judicial review. It is neither falsifiable nor makes predictions and so as a collection of arguments against another theory, is not a theory but a juxtaposition. Further, IMO, the only tenet which stands up to scrutiny is the tenet of specified complexity.

Please understand, I am a Christian who happens to believe the theory of evolution is not correct and so should be taught with caveats and disclaimers, but C/ID does not belong in the science class because it does not present any science.

I welcome your counter-claims.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Monk... ID is science, basically the problem or fear here is that the Darwinian evolutionists believe that ID will dip into their funds and stifle certain medical or environmental projects...

As an example... Please read the following quotes I received a few months ago from a pamphlet to defend science or DE.

Quotes from secular sources: "Particular Christian fundamentalist "moral codes" are increasingly imposing restrictions on what kinds of questions can be investigated by scientists and what kinds of answers scientists can come up with. HIV-prevention studies have come under attack for even attempting to study prevalent sexual practices. Funds have been cut and researchers have faced intimidation and harassment from fundamentalists inside and outside of government who insist that scientific study of HIV/AIDS begin and end with the demand for "abstinence-only" programs. Research into human sexuality in general has been suppressed and faulty studies and outright disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services is known to have deleted from its web site scientific health information, which conflicted with the Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex education...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

"- Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research, with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:21 pm

Quotes from secular sources: "Particular Christian fundamentalist "moral codes" are increasingly imposing restrictions on what kinds of questions can be investigated by scientists and what kinds of answers scientists can come up with. HIV-prevention studies have come under attack for even attempting to study prevalent sexual practices. Funds have been cut and researchers have faced intimidation and harassment from fundamentalists inside and outside of government who insist that scientific study of HIV/AIDS begin and end with the demand for "abstinence-only" programs. Research into human sexuality in general has been suppressed and faulty studies and outright disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services is known to have deleted from its web site scientific health information, which conflicted with the Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex education...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

my question is--how do you know these secular sources are accurate and not mis-representing them to stir up opposition to religious people?

secularists are under no moral authority to be truthful, while i can see fundamentalists doing such things i always question the source. it is highly possible that those who got funds cut off, were sloppy in their work and found it convenient to blame the religious crowd.

then where is it written that only secular people get to have the funds? sounds like a greed driven protest and not a truthful one to me.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:23 pm

Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research, with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

this is telling me that only secular people get to have or voice anopinionon a subject. also that if secularists are denied funding then they get to act like spoiled children and blame people for doing exactly what they are doing--expressing their views in a free society.

or only the secularists get to choose for the rest of the world what gets totake place? sorry, not buying into that.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:21 pm

Archaeologist wrote: my question is--how do you know these secular sources are accurate and not mis-representing them to stir up opposition to religious people?

Archaeologist.. What on earth are you talking about now?

Are you familiar with defendscience.org? Perhaps you should pay a visit to their website... This is where the quotes came from..

http://defendscience.org/

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:10 pm

One of the problems with my position is it is difficult to back my contention without supporting evolution which I do not want to do. Further, I was hoping more people would want to agree or disagree but no matter. Gman has stated matter-of-factly that ID is science. Therefore according to the accepted definition, ID (according to wiki):

refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about future events and observations. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

So let me start this refutation by asking, what makes ID any more true, scientifically, than saying, Aliens came to earth and genetically engineered life?

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:23 pm

Forum Monk wrote:One of the problems with my position is it is difficult to back my contention without supporting evolution which I do not want to do. Further, I was hoping more people would want to agree or disagree but no matter. Gman has stated matter-of-factly that ID is science. Therefore according to the accepted definition, ID (according to wiki):
refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about future events and observations. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
So let me start this refutation by asking, what makes ID any more true, scientifically, than saying, Aliens came to earth and genetically engineered life?

I like ID as a good philosophical argument. But I also question its testability.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:36 pm

Zoegirl and Monk,

Are you two familiar with ID?

Perhaps this article from Rich Deem will clarify it for you..

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... design.php

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

"ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

1. No model has been presented
2. Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
3. No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

1. define the Intelligent Designer
2. reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design."

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:22 pm

Sure, we can aplly investigative thought to whether there is design to the creation.

We should be cautious about understanding wht constitutes good design.

Even then the evolutionists will say evolution designs.....

(no agreeing, just that they themselves are changing the language and saying that)

And we are still stuck with who is the designer and I think that is the limit of ID. Somebody can come along and claim that sure, there was a designer, but they were aliens. Now how do we empirically test this? I've been trying to work this out. Any thoughts?