Interesting report on debate between ID/Evolution

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by mop, Mar 1, 2009.

  1. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    this was actually a debate between prominent Evolutionary scientist and author Michael Ruse and ID proponent William Dembski...


    Dembski's blog reports on debate

    although this came from Dembski's blog (not Dembski), it seems fairly evenhanded in its report of the debate.
     
  2. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    Intelligent design has a place in theology. It identifies God as the architect and workman of the 'begining'. However, it has no place in science. God may be real but He is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis as a cause of life and the universe.

    Scientists oppose intelligent design creationism because it seeks to insinuate the supernatural into science, but there's another cause for concern. Intelligent design, posing as science, became a wedge for teaching religion in the science classroom.

    The Link

    Creationists (including ID-proponents) have lost every case in the courts but the battle has moved to state legislatures and state school boards. Louisiana recently passed legislation that would require 'teaching the controversy' (code for teach creationism) and the Texas State Board of Education inserted some pseudoscience in the biology standards (while rejecting the worst of the tripe). Further legislation is pending in more states. The battle goes on.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. TxStHorn

    TxStHorn 1,000+ Posts

    I've never really had any difficulty seeing a compatability with science/evolution, and creationism in a general sense.

    I'm not certain why so many do.
     
  4. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  5. HornCyclist

    HornCyclist 500+ Posts

    Science hasn't determined the origin of life but there are several plausible theories, none of which include divine intervention. There's a whole field of biology dedicated to the origins of life called Astrobiology or exobiology.
    The Link

    I believe the most common theory is still the "primordial soup," but there are certainly others. In the Blindwatchmaker, Richard Dawkins gives a good explanation of how the primordial soup might have worked. To change things up, In the Selfish Gene, he presents the idea of A.G. Cairns-Smith that our first ancestors were not even organic life, but inorganic "replicators." He gives a very accessible explanation involving clay/mineral based structures. In this theory, DNA, our own, carbon-based replcicator would have later supplanted the inorganic replicators.

    It's quite fascinating stuff.
     
  6. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts


     
  7. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  8. A. BETTIK

    A. BETTIK 1,000+ Posts

    It is a good thing the ancients viewed God as omnipotent and omniscient. Science has shown how big is the universe, which makes all the more impressive God's ability to sustain each particle and regulate each particle with what science calls the laws of force.
     
  9. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  10. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  11. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    GT, you are mistaken....most ID proponents are very clear about what they personally believe about the designer. at the same time, they point out that it is not necessary to invoke God per se. in other words, some one else may be the designer as well. the primary point is that if there IS a designer (regardless of who that is), good science should be able to recognize that not preclude it a priori based on arbitrary presuppositions.
     
  12. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    michael ruse is a philosopher of science who works on the philosophy of biology...i would say he is fairly well-equipped in this area.....besides, he is one of the experts who argued against creationism in a court case back in 1981....so you are dangerously close to refuting some of your favorite talking points GT....


    and for the record, i would not care if my kid was taught Hindu creation myths although i would rather it not be taught in his science class. however, this is a strawman argument because no ID proponent that i am aware of is proposing the biblical view of creation be taught in science classes. what i have seen is that ID proponents want the evidence for design taught and problems with the naturalistic explanation of origins to be taught as well. i see no problem with that, although i have argued repeatedly that ID is not a fully functioning scientific enterprise at this time and needs to be more fully developed before it deserves anything approaching equal time in our classrooms. i am fine with it being mentioned briefly however.
     
  13. DRAG69

    DRAG69 1,000+ Posts

    Can we just keep religion and it's influences out of the public schools and in the church where it belongs please.

    We have all seen how it has worked with sex education or, in some districts, lack there of in Texas.
     
  14. OrangeChipper

    OrangeChipper 1,000+ Posts

    GT is so inconsistent. It has to be testable now???

    How can we test how something will react over millions of years??? That's NOT TESTABLE. Unless we get thousands of generations to commit to something now. How can we test how life comes from non--life?? How can we test what was in the primordial soup when we don't know exactly what was there. Untestable.

    Guess what... if you eliminate a cause from the outset, you'll never get the cause as a possible conclusion. God is not testable, agreed. But neither is Evolution as a theory for the origin of life. Just because we see MicroEvolution and SOMETIMES some minor MacroEvolution... doesn't mean its 'testable' either.
     
  15. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    OrangeChipper,

    Evolution isn't the theory that accounts for the origin of life. Evolutionary theory is only concerned with the way life diversified once life arose.
     
  16. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  17. Nordberg

    Nordberg 1,000+ Posts


     
  18. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    GT, i can't tell if you don't read my responses or if you are just so committed to soundbyte responses that you go ahead and say the same thing regardless.....either way, you are not letting my responses inform you.

    i have said that IDers don't pretend they don't think it is God and neither do I! i am very open about the fact that i am a Christian and to me the designer is God. that is not the point. the point is that ID should not be disqualified as it is then scientifically lacking for precluding design from the offset. if someone (God in my opinion, but that is an opinion and not scientific) designed life, then we would want to know right? and if we preclude the possibility then we have actually limited our knowledge. this really isn't very complicated.....

    no one is pretending anything....just saying that design is the important scientific principle and anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want about the designer and they can talk about that in their religion classes but not science class.
     
  19. iamtigerwoods

    iamtigerwoods 500+ Posts

    Does Zeus get any play in this discussion?
     
  20. OrangeChipper

    OrangeChipper 1,000+ Posts


     
  21. Nordberg

    Nordberg 1,000+ Posts


     
  22. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    I find this entire 'debate' almost laughable, and this is why.


    Someone mentioned keeping religion out of science classes, or out of sex education classes (the latter being a slap, it would seem at abstinance only education which is not 'taught' by any religion per se).

    I would ask how you propose to keep religion out of science or sex ed classes, or schools or education?

    Through which worldview or lens should we teach our children? Certainly, if you argue against teaching religious belief then Christianity is out of the question. As would be Buddhism, and Hinduism and Islam, and humanism, and secularism, and atheism... so from which framework of belief would you propose that teachers teach?

    I'll hang up now and listen to the answer.
     
  23. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  24. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  25. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts


     
  26. HornCyclist

    HornCyclist 500+ Posts


     
  27. UTbone04

    UTbone04 25+ Posts


     
  28. HornCyclist

    HornCyclist 500+ Posts

    I got out my copy of the Selfish Gene. Dawkins definitely speaks of DNA as the "replicator," but I was wrong on another point. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins describes the primordial soup theory. He gives A.G. Cairnes theory in the Blind Watchmaker.

    His point, and mine, is that there are many theories which explain the origin of life. We would do better to spend time in biology class teaching these science based theories than to teach intelligent design beside evolution.
     
  29. LongJohn

    LongJohn 100+ Posts

    Evolution is a scientific theory, not fact. Since it is not fact, schools, and scientists for that matter, should be open to other reasonably plausible theories. If there is reasonable, natural evidence for design in the pattern of living things (or even the universe), why can't that be taught without evoking a particular deity, etc.? It is just saying there is evidence for design vs. random chance. And there is enough argument and evidence to support this theory.

    I would think scientists would be open-minded enough to allow for other plausible theories. However, this would require them to challenge their own "faith"...that being the intricate diversity of living things randomly evolved by chance after unexplicably bursting on the scene from non-life.

    They protect this "faith" from being challenged by accusing ID of promoting God in the classroom.
     
  30. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts

    Dawkins is a popular science author, not a scientist. I would suggest The Structure of Evolutionary Theory as a significantly stronger treatment of evolutionary theory. SJG is, incidentally, the second most cited author (afer Darwin) in papers related to evolution. Gould's magnum opus completely subsumes the argument from The Selfish Gene in the first 80 pages (Dawkin's point from that book is incredible for explaining things like viruses and independent replicators within complex genomes, but is ultimately a simplistic and inadequate way of understanding evolution at most scales).

    As for the difference between RNA and DNA, it's a hydroxyl group (and a different version of one nitrogenous base, but that's irrelevant to this discussion). DNA was almost certainly not the first replicator because it lacks the second hydroxyl group that RNA has (Ribonucleic acid versus DEOXYribonucleic acid). As I stated, this reactivity gives a strand of RNA the reactivity needed to catalyze reactions, while greatly decreasing its longevity. I'm not aware of any DNA with enzymatic activity, while RNA with catalytic activity is a necessary component of every living organism (the ribosome).
     

Share This Page