[HydrogenBond]

Uncle Al I agree with you. I was using the green-natural as a parody for one of the latest gloves that will be discarded, like bottled water. I also agree that Gore is using green to make greenbacks. Although, he also seems to believe he is the Pope of the environmental religion. He is gathering his tithes from the faithful. He is waging political war against the non-green infidels. We have the chant "repent, the end of the world is near". This is rallying the faithful to spread the gospel according to the word of Gore. The arm is using bits and pieces from its long evolution. This is what makes it effective. It came from a inner template, and seems to have all the fingers and thumb.

[sanctus]

This thread has been moved here, for as long as it stays "scientific" it will stay here; but if it degrades into proving intelligent design it won't belong to philosophy of science anymore.

[modest]

I wrote this reply thinking the thread would get moved to the theology forum rather than Philosophy of Science. Now I'm not sure it's appropriate, but here it is anyway I guess:

I disagree with a few statements made so far…

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

Ok. Here we go...
Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other.
How? You ask.
Well, this is a new thread and we need to see some questions asked to focus on an answer.

I would like to ask a couple questions on this, but I’ll wait ‘til a couple quick things are cleared up.

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

I feel I can do this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.

It is wholly incorrect to say there are 2 versions of the bible that Christians teach from. There are many more. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox bible has a much larger canon than yours. The Coptic Christians of Egypt were probably founded on the oldest canonical gospel of all. Their version of the Christian bible is not the same as England put together in the reformation. It is very far removed from the Protestant version you mention. The KJV is less extensive than the Roman Catholic version which is again less extensive than the Greek Orthodox version.

All of these bibles (and there are more examples) are different than the books taught from by the earliest Christians of the first few centuries AD. For example, you will not find the Gospel of Thomas in any of the versions I just mentioned or the King James, yet people used it in the early Christian church.

In addition to all these different versions there are also different translations. Put all this together and I’m afraid what you’re saying:

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.

shows a very narrow mindset that fails even to acknowledge the extent of your own religion much less beliefs based on something besides.

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

Please keep in mind that this thread is NOT a debate for or against ANY religion; just a science oriented "how and why" showing explanations of some of the miracles in relation to science.

The common understanding of ‘science’ and ‘miracle’ would not allow science to “show explanations” for a miracle. If science explains it then by definition it isn’t a miracle. If it is a miracle then by definition science can’t explain it.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

Well, I think that science and religion definately work together. If you think otherwise, then something's wrong with your knowledge of religion or something's wrong with your knowledge of science.

On a personal level the two things may work together fine. A lot of good cosmology has been done by not only catholic priests but the church itself. The Pope has an observatory in his summer home after all. Maybe Catholics are trying to make up for condemning Galileo, or maybe - well, who knows their motivations. Point is - the Jesuit priests operating the observatory and doing the science have no personal problem between religion and science.

The problem comes when one (science or religion) tries to stifle the other. When religion says the sun circles the earth or there is no such thing as a vacuum and theists kills people who disagree; then, I agree, someone is misunderstanding religion. Where Christians and Muslims are being imprisoned in China, you have the opposite side of the coin.

Science deals with observation and descriptions of nature while religion deals with faith. As your bible points out in Hebrews 11, religion is having faith in things that can’t be seen. That is fundamentally different than science.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

Intelligent design is a theory

It is not. To be a scientific theory an hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design cannot be tested because it makes no predictions. It is not falsifiable.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong.

I agree. Intelligent Design (as it often stands now) cannot be proven wrong. It is an undeniable expression of faith like one’s belief in God. It cannot be tested. While there is nothing wrong with that in religion, there most certainly is something wrong with that in science. Which is why it doesn’t get to be called a theory.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

All other theories of the universe's origin are the same.

Depends on what you mean “universe’s origin”. If I said “An opera singer caused the Big Bang by singing the universe into existence ” then I agree, that cannot be proven wrong just like intelligent design can’t be proven wrong. Both would be bad science. If I said the observable universe was a rapidly inflating bunch of quantum fluctuations and cosmological perturbations 13.7 billion years ago then that can be proven wrong. It is a testable hypothesis that makes predictions - good science.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

Isn't it possible that there was someone from another plane of existence who created our own plane of existence before the laws of physics were ever even created, and in fact, he was the one to create them? It is possible.

And for all the reasons I’ve outlined above this is religion rather than science. With that prerequisite then yes - it is possible.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

I don't want to start some long debate, but I just want to take the opportunity to say that when you hear people say that they believe the earth is only ten thousand years old because it says so in the Bible, they are just being ignorant, a perfect example of the type of people whose religious knowledge is wrong.

This is not fair to people of many Orthodox religions. They know their bible. The timeline is very clear from Adam to David or Solomon (which we can date).

From the verse “God created the heaven and the earth” to the creation of Adam is explicitly six days (six mornings and six evenings). From Adam to Jesus is four thousand years give or take a few. Religious people aren’t making this up - it is what the book says. The genealogy is there.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

The Bible is meant to be understood on a more meaningful and at times metaphorical level. It is not to be understood as historical facts, rather it is a compilation of religious truths.

Once again, this is a fine belief but it is not science nor is it the belief of other theists.

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

eye on the skies, I totally agree.
I think sometimes that one may confuse "in the begining" with the big bang. The bible says in the begining that the earth was void, that means the earth was in existence, it just was not in very good "working order. I also agree with you that this should not be some long debate.
Peaceout!

So people don’t misunderstand. The first thing your bible says God did was create the earth and the sky. Those are the first words of the first book. Less than a week later the sky and the earth were fully formed with human life. I, of course, have no problem if that is not your belief (it certainly isn’t mine after all), But we must recognize that is what it says.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

oops. I didn't mean that it couldn't be proven wrong, but that it has yet to be proven wrong. sorry!

No, I think you were right - intelligent design is non-falsifiable. But, I think this is ok for religion. Would you want God to be testable or provable? Shouldn’t it be a matter of faith?

-modest

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by shadetreecountryboy

Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other.

No! Science and intelligent design work independently not together. They deal with entirely different things. Science deals with what is observable in the universe. ID deals with a belief system.

Discussion of ID does not belong in the Philosophy of Science area. As others have said, it is not a science. It makes no predictions and is not falsifiable. You either believe it, or you don't. That's your choice, but it is nothing to do with science, or the philosophy of science.

[eye on the skies]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

You either believe it, or you don't.

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

Sure there is!
Take the Theory of Relativity for example. We can test this theory and indeed it has been tested in many different ways. So, you are correct to say that the Theory of Relativity is not necessarily *true*. The theory is seen as a good theory because it passes any test thrown at it so far.

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

ID is not a testable theory, therefore it is not science.

[modest]

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

There are a lot of scientific theories that are not necessarily true. There's no reason to believe in them either.

I say this with the best intentions eye on the skies. It would really benefit you to read the wikipedia articles on theory and scientific method. Particularly to understand just what a scientific theory entails. If you did this it could only help you strengthen your argument because you seem to have some huge misconceptions about these topics. For instance:

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
-APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

It should be easy for you to see intelligent design cannot meet this qualification. Furthermore:

In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework... which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.
Wikipedia - theory

Once again, intelligent design cannot meet this qualification. These are essential criteria. In everyday usage the word 'theory' can mean something that may be right or wrong but isn't yet known. In science this doesn't fit at all.

In the language of science we would say intelligent design is "not even wrong". Something that is not even wrong means that there is no way to test it or use it for prediction or in any useful way. Such an idea is not part of science which is a discipline of testing, predicting, measuring, describing, and understanding nature. You simply can't do any of that with ID. Douglas Adams' idea that the universe was sneezed into existence is not even wrong.

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

ID does not contradict science because it is not in any way part of science. It is faith like a theistic belief in God. Faith is believing in something with no evidence or support for the object of faith. Such is intelligent design.

-modest

[HydrogenBond]

Reality is an abstract concept that is developed within the human mind. At one time, the human perceived reality including a flat earth. What we perceive as reality has its foundation within the human mind. Once the planet Pluto was not even a part of human reality perception until a human mind discovered it and others learned it. For example, a tree is real and is based in reality. If you asked ten people to describe a tree and then draw it, it is likely this one reality object, will have ten different pictures, each based on something in each person's mind, whether it be science or sentiment. Each person's perception of the same reality thing can be different, yet each will insist their tree is real. Which of these is reality? They all are since they all fits the abstraction specifications.

We can tighten this up, if we give each person the same picture of the tree to make as their standard. This allows group reality to become tighter. But once that is agreed on, if someone was to get out one of the old drawings, which was once considered viable reality, the group may say this is now out of touch with their reality, since this is not the reality we agreed on. There are two things going on; the object and human perception, with the human perception defining the reality, since this is an abstraction.

Where ID and science actually converge, is when reality first appeared in terms of a conceptual foundation in the human mind. The date of Genesis and the rise of civilization coordinate fairly well. This is when the first version of the abstraction called reality appeared in the human mind. The animal does not know reality the same way as a human, since they can't quite grasp this concept. There is no place in their brain for them to build the abstract foundation for this concept so they can not perceive reality in a human way. Genesis talks about when the human brain changed allowing the first abstract reality concept.

It is subtle. Before a student learns science, science is not yet fully part of their perception of reality, because they have not yet been taught the group reality. They don't know electrons are particle and waves until it is taught, then it is real to them. This physical reality existed when they were babies, but it was not perceived as part of their perception of reality until they learned about it. The ID reality happened when the human mind changed about 10,000 years ago. It created the first abstract concept about reality, and therefore laid the foundation to continues to allows humans to explain and teach human perception of reality. This is important to science. ID needs to see the human perception of reality has evolved since the original, with science adding much more detail to the original.

The debate is not physics and biology, but the actual event when the modern human mind first was able to develop a concept of reality. That first reality had the universe appearing in one day. This was an important breakthrough in evolution, since modern human perception of reality had been formless and void in the mind of the pre-humans. Then the modern human mind awoke. With the new ability to abstract, in hand, humans started to explain the world as they saw it, based on what it could understand at that point in time. It was the Wright Brother's first flight for the modern mind, making even future science possible. Humans have continued to build on this. Science is based on that humble foundation, with that first perception of reality making it possible to keep improving the design. This does not preclude genetics or God giving that spark to the human mind. Adam may have bee the first mutation capable of abstraction or the first recipient of the divine spark, depending on one's view.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Reality is an abstract concept that is developed within the human mind. At one time, the human perceived reality including a flat earth. What we perceive as reality has its foundation within the human mind.

No. The concept of reality is developed within the human mind. Reality exists whether we conceive it to or not. The example you give is a good example of this: Man conceived the world to be flat, but that does not mean that it was in reality flat. It was, in reality, a rocky ball orbiting the sun. Man's conception of reality is not reality. The rest of your argument is shown to be false by your own example.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The debate is not physics and biology...

On the contrary the debate is precisely about physics and biology. ID is not a science, and has no bearing on science. There is (in principle) no interaction between ID and science. ID tells us nothing about science, and vice versa. I say in principle because science can tell us nothing about what caused the universe to come into existence. But it can show conclusions based on ID to be wrong, such as the age of the universe.

[UncleAl]

Uncle Al was formed by God blowing life into clay. It's in the Book! All humanity is hydrated aluminosilicate. Everything contrary is the work of the Devil - and anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unfit to comment.

"Blessed are the cheesemakers," a wise man once said. Or maybe not. Only a schismatic self-serving heretic would then declare that statement to be allegory encompassing all dairy workers.