Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

Catching up on my backlog of reading, I have come across this great essay in Time Magazine by Nobel Prize winning physicist Eric Cornell. It is available on the web at: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell and What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell

 

No takers?
I'm not surprised.

ID has no scientific merits with which to defend it.
People who claim to promote ID only attack attack perceived weaknesses in accepted scientific theories.
ID offers nothing scientific on its own.
It's just another tool the religious right is using to try to insinuate religion into the public schools.

 

There was a dot.....

There was a God.....

Whats the difference, the "Dot" theory has no scientific merit other than imagination.

To you God has no scientific merit.

Like I said, both are believed by faith. There is absolutly no body of evidence that supports the "dot/explosion" theory other than imaginations that are not measureable. You are failing to show how you belief in a theory is different than my belief in God.

By the way Kiloran, what is your great body of scientific merit that you are standing on? You only reference the macro philosophy of evolution but you have offered no body of proof yourself.

One writer dismissed the discussion on the age of the earth as if it were not relevant to the discussion on evolution. I have learned something, you have proposed that evolution is not dependent on time. We agree on that point. Why then does every textbook on the subject start off with "Million and millons of years ago"? I thought this great amount of time was required to explain the species jumps?

As for the comment on Avian flu I have already agreed that natural selection and adaptation are proven fact. I would not even call them theory, they are truth. However, I draw the line when you say that a virus will become a bird. Mutations and adaptations within a species are obvious and creationist would not take issue with that..... Sorry, no fight here.

Hay, I love my Prius by the way!

 

And I respect your right to differ. One thing I do have in common with some of my religious friends is an overarching belief in, and desire for, "brotherhood"; and, failing that, at least civility, "agreeing to disagree".

We cannot, should not, allow ourselves to become so polarized over our religious, political and social differences that when we pass each other in the store, having no idea what the other believes in, I will not stop, bend down, pick up and return to you with a smile what you have dropped.

We cannot be what Sunnis and Shias have become to each other, what the poor black wretches have become to the janjaweed, what the extreme right has become to the extreme left in this country.

The USA is still the greatest experiment in history in the peaceful and mutually respectful reconciliation of differences. To me, it's our bottom line.

:reaching mode *OFF*::

 

the 'dot/explosion' above is *NOT* evolution... you're talking astrophysics...

Here's the difference between your belief in God and our "belief" in astrophysics... if and when new evidence is discovered that refutes or refines the the "big bang" idea, we will "believe" a new theory or a refined theory just like how quantum mechanics refined bohr's atomic model...

It's not faith that allows us to "believe" in big bang theory... it is the conceit that human beings are fallible, that no idea and no evidence is perfect and all encompassing... and that that is the (arguably) best idea we have based on available evidence that has been through rigorous vetting. If a better idea comes along, and you manage to convince the best minds that you're right, science will accept it...

But when you talk about God, that is strictly in the area of theology and faith... where the supernatural is talked about freely, and where there is no framework for the ideas of theology to refine themselves in science...

the "Theory" of God isn't the same as a scientific theory... all scientific theory has the built in implication that the theory may be incomplete, inviting scientists to challenge it... the "Theory of God" is meant to be an end all...

My problem is with people using "God" an end-all explanation that fills in all the cracks... if everyone believed that "God" was responsible for everything that cannot be explained currently with science, then there would be no reason to further explore the unknown.

 

I'm not a professional scientist in a field that would be knowledgable in all of the great body of scientific merit, and perhaps Kiloran isn't as well... but such a body of evidence does exist... just because someone on this board doesn't post it doesn't mean that it does not exist...

He does not have to offer the proof himself. it's just far too much evidence to post onto a forum such as this... perhaps in a scientific journal, yes.. but not here.

Such a body of evidence does exist, and is freely available for you to read it if you were to look.

The point still stands, however... it is impossible to state the "theory" of ID without directly or indirectly referencing the supernatural... so most ID proponents take the strategy, as you have, of attacking the weaknesses of various scientific theories instead of even stating your argument for ID.

The fact that ID involves the supernatural is why it is so frowned upon by the scientific community, and why it is NOT science.

 

LaughingMan is quite right
The theory of evolution is the current generally accepted scientific theory for explaining natural adaptation.
I think it would be a mistake to let you bait us into legitimizing ID by letting the debate be about the merits of the theory of evolution instead of the merits (or lack of merit) of ID.

You support ID.
I repeat my challenge for you to defend ID on its scientific merits rather than the problems you perceive in the rest of science (evolution, radioactive dating, geology, palientology, ...) .

 

Wow! A few days ago, this discussion was about an ID class being taught in a university, which naturally led to the discussion of whether it should be taught in public schools. Now everyone's discussing, vigorously, the merits of science and creationism (and it's getting very repetitive -- no disrespect intended).

Should ID be taught in public schools?

No. Not as an alternative theory to evolution, which is what this is about. Creationism is based on faith, not scientific evidence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

Through case law, "congress" now includes states, cities, and public schools. And for very good reason. The US was founded on the belief that no religion should be given status over another by the government. It prevents sanctioned persecution, which is what happens when governments establish a particular religion. Just look at the Middle East.

Why not teach creationism in school? Well, which version of creationism would be taught? Christian, Judaism, Hindi, or Muslim? How about Muslim extremism? What about Gnosticism? Or Wiccan? Or Satanism?

Science belongs in public schools. ID belongs in church.

 

I agree with you on the overall question ... since ID has not proven itself to be an acceptable science theory, it cannot be taught as science. If it every acheives legitimacy, then it should be taught just as other alternative, legitimate theories are taught (which in elementary and high schools is very rare; they barely touch the surface of the generally accepted theory much less alternative theories.)

The founders clearly wanted the national / federal government to dis-establish any formal ties to religion, but about half wanted their state governments to continue with their official church ties. It was the early to mid 1800's before the last state broke its ties to a church (MA and the Congregationalists, I believe). Disestablishment took a while to filter down to the state and local level, as you indicated by mentioning case law.

But, you can find plenty of examples of free societies with official church ties, such as England.

But we were the first to have disestablished ties to religion in a process that lasted for 2 generations, and it resulted in the most religious western culture on earth. Its always been interesting to me that Americans are more religious, without official government support of religion.

 

We discussed this in our science/spirituality group at church a while ago. One idea was that because there's no state backed religion there is a lot of competetion for membership and often political clout. In Europe, where most countries have a state sponsored religion, there is no competition. People tend to be more apathetic (though that may have nothing to do with the above situation).

It would seem to me that the only way for ID to become a legitimate scientific theory is if a god came out and said "Yeah, I did it all this way". Unless we hear that it doesn't mean that evolution is invalid even if we are able to someone know the presence of God. God could easily have simply put things in motion. In fact unless there is self-imposed ignorance on the part of God it seems that free will is impossible.

 

Well, if a god did say that, it still wouldn't be scientific unless it was validated by scientific peer review. The god could be lying, or mistaken, or only half right. Science self-corrects because its a discipline with some rigorous standards.

I'm a Christian, with conservative theological views, but I see no problem with accepting science for what it is alongside my faith. I don't think God is afraid of truth (even imperfect, incomplete truths).

 

Quite true, particularly if that God believes in free will.

There seems to be a lot of interpretation here in order to reconcile the two. For example, is the story of Noah's Ark literal or poetic for you? I'm not being contrary, I'm just curious. I personally don't see how you could accept evolution/genetics AND take a literal view of this account. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

 

May I inquire if your literal view is based upon reading the text in its original language or based upon translations which, by necessity, contain the commentaries of translators in when words have several meanings?

My favorite mistranslation gives Moses horns on his forehead.

Look at Moses forehead. He has horns!

The Horned Moses

 

I take the view that the text itself gives us clues as to whether a passage is a literal historical account, or if it is an allegory. Secondly, if there is some question that the text is allegory or a literal account, then external factors can be taken into account.

Study of the Bible is complicated by the fact that "history", as a discipline as we know it, simply didn't exist; there are no historical texts from that time.

Biblical scholars disagree on what the story of Noah exactly says. The text, just like in the creation stories, gives some conflicting information and shows some evidences of being from more than one source, so Moses may have been drawing on a couple of (probably) oral sources when he wrote it, as well as the divine inspiration that I believe he had.

The other issue is the use of language, and what it really means. The Gospel accounts say that Ceasar issued a decree to "tax the whole world", but we understand that to mean the limited Roman world, and not that he expected taxes from China or the native Americans. The language in the Flood in Genesis is believed by most scholars to mean that the known world was flooded, a localized catastrophe, if you will.

These caveats exist from study of the text itself, and the interpetations by scholars of the language used, and not just because of the external proofs we have. But they help us decide, because there is a question in the text itself as to how it should be interpeted. We know, scientifically, that there certainly wasn't a single point back some 6,000 years ago with a common male ancestor ... Noah ... for all of us. We also have a list of sorts, and know that the platypus was not on the list, nor the buffalo, etc., and we know that 7 pair of all the animals (in one of the accounts; two pair in the other) would not fit on a boat that size. Those external evidences point to a less literal reading of the story and lead us to a more allegorical reading.

The problem that will arise if we pursue this is that we are now applying modern scientific methods to interpetation of scripture written centuries before modern scientific methods were conceived. Theology simply doesn't operate in the same realm as science, and deconstructing it this way is a bit like trying to apply a maintenance manual for a Mack Truck to the Prius.

 

I'm a great believer in the concept of "appeal to authority", so I read what scholars say, and make a decision in the best manner that I can. I cannot read Hebrew, and we don't have the originals anyway, so I can't read the original text. But there are a lot of smart people reading it, and writing about it, so that can help me understand it.

The horned Moses is an interesting case, and I suspect you made it to make religion look foolish. But it has the opposite meaning; through a cycle of the religious world's equivalent to science's peer review, the mistranslation was discovered and now we have a hearty chuckle about it.

It is interesting that this thread started out with shock and dismay that the Kansas voters want to apply religious principles to science, and we have come full circle. Some folks here are now wanting to apply modern scientific principles to religion.

 

No. I brought that point up to illustrate that many individuals who accept the literal meaning of the scriptures - as they have read them in English - have flawed beliefs due to poor choices made by translators when words have several meanings in the original language.

I always find it amusing when someone relies on quotes from an English version of the Bible, as if that text was inerrant, when attempting to prove anything.

I am fluent in Hebrew and have been aware of the Horned Moses gaff since I first visited the Vatican and saw Michelangelo’s famous Moses statute, when I was still a kid. Since then, I have been made aware of numerous other such mistakes in translations of the Hebrew Bible. I am sure similar errors exist in the translations of the New Testament as well, but since I am neither familiar with it nor do I know Greek, I never bothered to look those up.

 

I wasn't implying borescoping the Bible if you're referring to me. I was just curious how you'd interpret certain sections of the Bible since you don't see conflict between what we observer scienctifically and those sections which, if taken literally, conflict with those scientific observations.

 

Here's a thought.

The scientific method:

1. Posit a question re: the natural world
2. Research all known information about this problem
3. Develop a cause and effect testable hypothesis
4. Experiment to test the hypothesis
5. Analyze the results
6. Come to a conclusion
7. Refer back to hypothesis to see if one needs to modify/thow out/or accept it based on the results of the above methodology.

And.. lets not forget peer review of all the work. Bad science will not stand.

The BIG problem I have with ID/Creationism asking to share time in a venue where the scientific method defines what goes on is very simple. Their belief is one of faith. It presents a conclusion that does not allow for testing and modification. Would any ID/Creationist be willing to modify or discount their belief in their model as more and more molecular evidence for evolution unfolds?

Remember when scientists believed in the steady state theory of the earth? Prior to plate techtonics? A paradigm shift occurred when the evidence was sufficient to prod even the most stalwart non-believers to accept the new "theory".

Galileo.. are you smilin' up there?

 

A little OT, but I'll ask. Have you been to Israel? Recently? If so, have the Israelis been introduced to the delights of the Prius?

I don't even know if gas is expensive in Israel. Never saw it mentioned.

 

I have not been there recently, but the answer to your question is an unequivocal yes.

Toyota Israel