Intelligent Design belittles God,

I just wish there were more of us who were religious and stated that ID is definitely not in 'support' of God as clearly as that.

"Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be," said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes. ANSA reported that the Jesuit priest made his remarks at a conference in Florence.

Among believers, Father Coyne said, there's an unfortunate tendency to "latch onto God" when scientific explanations fall short. "One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so they can fill them with God," he said.

This is good stuff. Let's just hope the faithful flock listens...

The other take on this is that some people want their religion to be superior to all others by having the imprimatur of science. Then their superior righteousness gives them political justification to impose their wills on others. Isn't that the general message of the Wedge document? It would produce what could be called a "protoscientific theocracy."

Well, that's told the Cardinal! I wonder if he's regretting having been talked into writing that article and having the Discovery Institute's PR company get it placed at the New York Times.

Father Coyne's opinion about the theological status of evolution is not unlike that of the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, who said the following in response to the controversy about the teaching of creationism at Emmanuel College in England a couple of years ago:

"I find what this school is doing sad for a number of reasons. First, the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it. This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn't just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself. God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has, as it were, woven creation from the bottom upwards: with matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me. The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit."

Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out which religions besides Christianity ID really "helps". Take the "aliens did it" argument. What about the aliens? "Designed", ad infinitum?

That aside, ID really does belittle the idea of God. Would a perfect creator, who wants people's faith in his existence irregardless of proof, really be so sloppy as to leave signs of his handiwork just lying around? Even as philosophy, ID is pretty vacuous.

This article supports the idea that God is not the great cosmic puppeteer up in the sky moving the quarks and leptons around making everything happen for some mysterious purpose but interacts with believers in a totally spiritual way separate from empiric investigation. This idea has been pooh-poohed by contributors to PT in the past as being meaningless but in fact it is a crucial belief among many main stream Christians who reject the teaching of ID in highschool science classes and support evolutionary biology. These people are our allies.

These people are our allies.

In fact, only supernatural charity, like that which flows continually from the heart of Christ, can explain the exceptional flowering down through the centuries of male and female religious orders and institutes, and other forms of consecrated life.

What apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process?

This position refutes ID at the cost of accepting an even more absurd idea: that an entity that doesn't interact with the universe can be meaningfully said to 'exist'.

You might as well say that God used evaporative cooling to chill my piping-hot soup because he loves me.

This is good stuff. Let's just hope the faithful flock listens...

— Renier

You might as well say that God used evaporative cooling to chill my piping-hot soup because he loves me.

I'll choose my own allies, thanks. In my experience, the religious folk claiming a special relationship with the gods can be just as dominating as the religious folk claiming science supports their religion.

— buddha

I sometimes wonder whether having all these Catholics (Miller, etc.) speak out sometimese backfires. After all, as was pointed out, the fundies don't like the Catholics very much - I'm sure their "doctrinal laxity" or whatever would be said might further alienate some of them.

(Incidentally, why has the comments field been moved to the start of the comments? This is somewhat annoying if one wants to read the comments and then contribute.)

But if you actually hope to educate and convince this rather large group (that is trying to destroy you) you should probably be a bit more tolerant.

Christians should make it clear that messages of anti-theism and anti-Christianity can also come from pseudoscientific poseurs from within their own ranks, like Dembski. For this, I applaud Father Coyne. If the only life line sustaining ID is the popular notion that it advances apologetics of God, regardless of its failure as a scientific research program, then we need to hear more of this.

Caledonian wrote:

We're scientists and rationalists. We don't tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can't doesn't bring people to our side, we don't want them.

That's easy for you to say. You're not the one trying to form a sensible and productive policy and get large numbers of voters to support it; nor are you the one taking the heat if anything goes wrong.

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work."

I'll choose my own allies, thanks. In my experience, the religious folk claiming a special relationship with the gods can be just as dominating as the religious folk claiming science supports their religion.

— buddha

We're scientists and rationalists. We don't tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can't doesn't bring people to our side, we don't want them.

I sometimes wonder whether having all these Catholics (Miller, etc.) speak out sometimese backfires. After all, as was pointed out, the fundies don't like the Catholics very much - I'm sure their "doctrinal laxity" or whatever would be said might further alienate some of them.

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science (We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. The next step in our campaign is outlined here.)

Christians should make it clear that messages of anti-theism and anti-Christianity can also come from pseudoscientific poseurs from within their own ranks, like Dembski. For this, I applaud Father Coyne. If the only life line sustaining ID is the popular notion that it advances apologetics of God, regardless of its failure as a scientific research program, then we need to hear more of this.

— Lurker

But without us theistic evolutionists, how would you be able to convince the other side that you can have your cake and eat it too?

But without us theistic evolutionists, how would you be able to convince the other side that you can have your cake and eat it too?

Perhaps so, but at least they aren't trying to masquerade their religious beliefs as science and force the state to teach them to my children.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

But you see, I do care about the fundies trying to change science standards in some hick town in PA, because that's exactly where they are most likely to be successful.

And if they succeed there, they create an entire group of fundies that share the same beliefs they do, that then grow up, move away to other areas, and start pushing the same agenda.

In the end, all they really have to do is out-reproduce us. So if we don't stop them, here and now, we face the much harder task of stopping them later when they make up an even larger percentage of the population.

I agree the evo-ID debate is just the tip of the true iceberg, but if you don't pay attention to the tip, you find out the real problem is lurking just under the surface.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

— buddha

Except that most people classify atheism as a religion, and by attempting to force it onto other people, you become an atheistic fundamentalist.

— AD

And if they succeed there, they create an entire group of fundies that share the same beliefs they do, that then grow up, move away to other areas, and start pushing the same agenda.

Well, buddha, I can't fault you for your ideals. I myself have waffled back and forth between agnosticism and religious belief myself, and frankly have just washed my hands of the whole thing. God or gods, I let them be and they leave me alone, and we're all good.

But I do keep an eye on these debates simply because not everyone shares my (humble) good sense about such things, and they keep trying to force their viewpoints on others. And while I concede that they have the right to believe as they choose (or choose not) to believe, I also believe in my right to keep them from pushing their agenda into my home, or your home, or anyone else's home.

At any rate, before we derail this thread any further, I say we either move this particular aspect of the discussion to the Bathroom Wall, or agree to disagree on the way we beat the fundies.

All this shows is that there is a raging controversy in the Catholic church over evolution and intelligent design.

Coyne is talking through his hat when he says, "neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal [Cardinal Schonborn], 'an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.' " From -- http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 That is exactly what neo-Darwinism is.

ALso, Coyne is taking what should be a scientific issue -- evolution vs. irreducible complexity -- and trying to change it into a theological issue.

Anyway, evolutionists should be careful about playing footsie with religion --- it could get evolution banned from public-school science classrooms. LOL

What apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process

[...] agree to disagree on the way we beat the fundies.

In fact, only supernatural charity, like that which flows continually from the heart of Christ, can explain the exceptional flowering down through the centuries of male and female religious orders and institutes, and other forms of consecrated life.

Back on topic: are there any Catholics who would defend Father Coyne's fideist Non-Overlapping Magisteria when Benedict XVI is still talking about empirical evidence for the existence of gods: In fact, only supernatural charity, like that which flows continually from the heart of Christ, can explain the exceptional flowering down through the centuries of male and female religious orders and institutes, and other forms of consecrated life.

— buddha

Also, Coyne is taking what should be a scientific issue --- evolution vs. irreducible complexity --- and trying to change it into a theological issue.

buddha wrote: I'm not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists. AD wrote: Except that most people classify atheism as a religion, and by attempting to force it onto other people, you become an atheistic fundamentalist. Somehow in between the original post and the reply, convince transformed into force. Must be a point mutation.

Empirical evidence?

All this shows is that there is a raging controversy in the Catholic church over evolution and intelligent design.

— Andy H.

Yes. The pope claims that only supernaturalism can explain the growth of religious orders (a quantifiable observation). It appears the pope, along with the IDiots, believes in the god of the gaps. What would Father Coyne have to say about this?

1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

I always get a couple of creationists (usually they wouldn't be able to tell you what kind they are, not having thought much beyond whatever they've heard in church) in my geology classes, and have to put in the caveat that some of them think of Catholics as somewhere between misled and evil. I've had to cut off several conversations including Catholic-bashing. I would be willing to bet that a great statement like this would make no difference or increase the conviction in creation for many of these students.

I always get a couple of creationists (usually they wouldn't be able to tell you what kind they are, not having thought much beyond whatever they've heard in church) in my geology classes, and have to put in the caveat that some of them think of Catholics as somewhere between misled and evil. I've had to cut off several conversations including Catholic-bashing. I would be willing to bet that a great statement like this would make no difference or increase the conviction in creation for many of these students.

p.s. what is this required "wait time" message I just got? An enforced cooling-off time in case I'm flaming someone?

The whole idea of a wedge (or The Wedge) is to start with hick towns as a means of introducing psuedoscience so that it can be more easily accepted elsewhere. If one is worried about an expanding theocratic mentality showing up in a secular institution in the US (as I am), it has to be refuted wherever and in whatever form it exists.

Posted by Caledonian on January 31, 2006 09:00 AM (e) We're scientists and rationalists. We don't tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can't doesn't bring people to our side, we don't want them.

Posted by buddha on January 31, 2006 10:44 AM (e) ... I'm not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

Dear Religious Nutjobs, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts.

Not because I am an athiest. I am not an athiest. But, somehow the comment seemed relevant.

Stephen Elliott ,
An interesting question: Do you think science has disproved god?

I would say that science has made mincemeat out of creation myths but really can't say anything about god. In other words, religion as a political structure is based on some tenets that don't hold up under the scrutiny of scientific investigation but that the "spiritual awareness" many people feel holds up pretty well. I just finished The God Gene and I think that a lot of people who use the spiritual underpinnings of many religions are not hampered in arriving at scientific conclusion based on evidence. These guys at the vatican have some pretty educated folks and they make sense in a lot of what they say. It's pretty hard to deny them a lot of their view of their religion whereas it's pretty easy to deny fundies most of their views.

Buddha, you seem to be confusing observable data with empirical arguments. For instance "only God can explain the origin of this universe" is a faith based statement especially if one argues that God set it all in motion before the Big Bang. Two separate magistera.

"To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need," the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they "fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God."

Very well put. It explains why fundamentalist Christians must have mystery (or the appearance thereof) in order to make their lives have meaning. Whereas, to the scientist, a mystery is viewed as a challenge - the more elusive, the better. I imagine there has to be a "shrink" out there who can explain these vastly different perspectives in terms of personality development.

Okay. I'm not an evangelistic atheist...

— buddha

JOHN SAFRAN VS GOD 2004 (SBS-TV) In his most audacious project yet, John set off across the globe to take on religion... He doorknocks in Utah and tries to convert Mormons to atheism...

Are you deliberately trying to drive-away the majority of your support?

Or are you claiming (rather arrogantly) that science disproved God?

Posted by BWE on January 31, 2006 01:40 PM (e) Stephen Elliott , An interesting question: Do you think science has disproved god? ...

Posted by buddha on January 31, 2006 01:58 PM (e) ... I think science has demonstrated the vacuity and untestability of religion. On the contrary, atheism can be tested: a six-thousand year old universe would have falsified my worldview.

BWE your quote...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --- Stephen Roberts.

One only has to look at how religions and gods have 'evoloved' from the earliest ancient nomadic peoples with shaman and 'dream times' through the arc of agricultural settlements with female fertility goddesses.
The take overs by growing early warlike tribes with their male based war gods such as Yahweh. The growth of rich civilizations with the trinities of Isis, Brahamn etc through to multicultural kingdoms which required a more forgiving God for society to function and their accompanying myths to see that the above statement makes more sense than most would acknowledge. Man creates in his mind whatever takes his fancy and the more desire for control the more controlling his fancies are. Divine inspiration ? read Behe's day dream its all there "Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could read gods mind."
Man IS a social animal and the only way that can work is if we can read each others minds.
Ask any Politician or car salesman (and some priests) "How do you know how people are going to react?"
They would look at you as if you had come down in the last shower, "Are you from a different planet" they would ask.
All people have to be able to do it just to function in society and some are better at it than others. Just look at good old JC or The Buddha they were onto something ...but a sky daddy ?
Well religion is mind reading and pandering(mostly to preists) backed up by a rich and powerful king and the really big ones didn't get there by playing to anyone weak points.
Quite conveinient really, if the king is the son of the sun, not too many people are going to question that one are they ?
They know which side of the bread has the ghee.

Budda,

I think maybe you are confusing religion with god. And maybe God with god. Consider this common argument from fundies: from a bacterium's point of view, your gut may be the whole universe. How can it know what is outside of it? So, to a bacteria, we have, what might be aptly called goddish properties. The bacteria may not relate to us in any meaningful way and we may not relate to it in any meaningful (conscious) way but the relationship exists. If we can reflect on our own universe but not on other, external universes, this doesn't make them non-existent. It doesn't make them relevant but it doesn't disprove them either. So that is the cosmological point.

There is also a personal point: we are made of the universe's stuff and we can observe and reflect. That means the universe can self organize at some level to reflect upon itself. Regardless of the reasons for this, in apt title for this reflection in our lexicon is "spirituality". Despite the fact that religions have hijacked that experience and burdened it with artificial guilt and political power (I didn't know it was the holy land but I believed from the minute the check left my hand), the experience is observable and repeatable and is the subject of several scientific studies which do not make the claim that the experience is not real.

So maybe your issue is semantic. Or maybe not. I'm just trying to build bridges here. It takes a village y'know.

If we can reflect on our own universe but not on other, external universes, this doesn't make them non-existent. It doesn't make them relevant but it doesn't disprove them either.

That means the universe can self organize at some level to reflect upon itself. Regardless of the reasons for this, in apt title for this reflection in our lexicon is "spirituality". [...] the experience is observable and repeatable and is the subject of several scientific studies which do not make the claim that the experience is not real.

I think the pope is arguing from the observable data (the growth in religious orders, if this is the case, even) to the supernatural conclusion. This is an empirical argument, and a god of the gaps argument.

This is not the case with gods: gods in principle could interact with this universe - but the gods may choose not to do this. Thus the proposition "there are gods" is untestable, but the proposition "there are no gods" is testable: a miracle (for example, a six-thousand year old universe) would disprove atheism.

You may be equivocating here. You define "spirituality" as merely self-reflection, which obviously occurs, but then you say that "spirituality" is the subject of several scientific studies, which suggests to me that you might mean something beyond merely self-reflection.

Science is and should be seen as "completely neutral" on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that "science and religion are totally separate pursuits."

Quite a bit of time, and not a little blood.

What apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process?

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work."

If we can prove that our universe is a closed system which displays no evidence for "magic" i.e meddling by a god....

— BWE

Back on topic: are there any Catholics who would defend Father Coyne's fideist Non-Overlapping Magisteria when Benedict XVI is still talking about empirical evidence for the existence of gods: In fact, only supernatural charity, like that which flows continually from the heart of Christ, can explain the exceptional flowering down through the centuries of male and female religious orders and institutes, and other forms of consecrated life.

— bhudda

AC
As far as the big chief who will really get you if you get outta line? I guess, science has, to my satisfaction, disproved that guy.

Or are you claiming (rather arrogantly) that science disproved God?

— Stephen Elliot

I can't speak as to what you perceive, Chuck C, but it's clear to me that the statement asserts that supernatural intervention is responsible for the existence of religious orders. Just what kind of intervention is vague, almost certainly purposely so.

We're rapidly approaching "Yes, Virginia, there is a YHWH" territory.

Unlike some posting in this thread, I'm not concerned that the Catholic Church's position is not sufficiently pure on the science. Having been educated in parochial schools in the '60s my recollection is that we were taught science and religion as sort of independent entities. Where there were Biblical references that conflicted with natural history or current scientific thought, i.e. the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, the extraordinary ages of the Old Testament prophets, the plagues of Egypt, even the miracles of Christ himself, the priests and nuns generally fudged on the literalism of the Bible offering vague explanations that the Bible stories were allegories or a sort of subjective history written by ancient peoples with limited knowledge of the natural world to describe wondrous events that they could not fully comprehend.
It seems the Church is still trying to straddle this line. That's between them and their faithful. The bigger point is that the Church is clearly accepting the idea that science is well, science and that rather than rejecting science as invalid, that Church doctrine must be reconciled with the reality of science. I'll leave that to them to sort out. However it seems that the Church is now taking a public position that they want no part of ID and by extension other attacks on science. On a related note I saw news reports about a week ago of a similar article published in the official Vatican newspaper reportedly expressing even more strongly the concepts that evolution is valid scientific theory, ID is not, if there are problems with evolutionary theory they should be addressed through true scientific inquiry, and criticizing American ID proponents for commingling science and religion.

It's not between the Church and its faithful, it's between the Church and its potential converts.

And since the Church explicitly seeks to spread its message to all people...

I can't speak as to what you perceive, Chuck C, but it's clear to me that the statement asserts that supernatural intervention is responsible for the existence of religious orders.

— Caledonian

Coyne is talking through his hat when he says, "neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal [Cardinal Schoenborn], 'an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.' " From --- http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.... That is exactly what neo-Darwinism is.

— Andy H.

... In an online discussion devoted to the issue [of evolution vs. intelligent design], one individual said that he couldn't really understand what the controversy was about. He argued that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, exists outside of the world He creates, and expects us to believe in Him through faith alone, then surely He would not have left any traces in His creation which would provide an empirical alternative to that faith. Viewed this way, the world discovered through science -- including evolution and the big bang -- is simply the divinely opaque means through which God created the world we now see.

In contrast, there are a great many religious individuals who believe that God is not something which one can fit inside a test-tube, and that it is a mistake to treat the belief in God as an empirical hypothesis to be tested inside a lab or a class devoted to science. They believe that the very act of attempting to demonstrate the existence of God is itself destructive of true faith.

(from "A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents," link to article in #76433) Intelligent Design is a thinly disguised trojan horse created specifically for the purpose of breaching The Separation of Church and State. Oftentimes the disguise is so transparent that its proponents deliberately try to frame the conflict between their pseudo-scientific theory and evolutionary biology in terms of a conflict between religious adherents and atheists, and this plays well with those who are religious. However, in its attempt to undermine The Separation of Church and State, it threatens to violate the rights of the religious and non-religious alike. Insofar as it advances the interests of such extremist groups as the http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htmDominionists (who are responsible for much of the funding of the Discovery Institute), it threatens the rights of the good majority of Christians, and ultimately even the rights of the fundamentalists themselves. Of necessity, it likewise threatens another important, albeit less well recognized principle of a pluralistic society: the separation between religion and science. It has often been acknowledged that in so doing, Intelligent Design will necessarily be destructive of science, but less well acknowledged is the fact that it will be destructive of religious faith and religion. But such is the nature of the conflict. Despite Phillip Johnson's rhetoric, this is not a conflict between the religious and the non-religious, nor is this a conflict between religion and science. It is a conflict between religious extremists and the rest of society. And if the religious extremists are permitted to win, ultimately everyone (including the religious extremists) will lose.

ALso, Coyne is taking what should be a scientific issue --- evolution vs. irreducible complexity --- and trying to change it into a theological issue.

— Andy H.

No. Father Coyne is talking about the "Theory of Intelligent Design." The question of whether irreducible complexity can be arrived at by means of gradualistic evolution is a scientific question. It is falsifiable. It has been falsified. However, this is not the same thing as the "Theory of Intelligent Design" itself which claims that life (or the universe) is too complex to have been the result of natural processes. The "theory" offers no hypotheses by means of which it may be "tested" or "falsified." Therefore it is not scientific.

I'd rather convince people to become atheists

And it's "clear" to creationists that the evolution is a "theory, not a fact". Just as that assertion depends on ignoring that the word theory has a different meaning within the scientific community than in the vernacular, bhudda's assertion depends on applying his own interpretations to statements made within a religious context. It also supposes that the translation from Italian into English preserved Benedict's precise meaning.

— I

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State.

The Catholic church,along with many other denominations,have experienced a drastic reduction in membership, particularly in Europe.It maybe conceived that in order to bolster their failing position,courting
the science world may prove advantageous.
It would seem that the Catholic church is perfectly comfortable, to a point, with evolution,and the way life unfolded on earth.If however science should in some way question the existence of god, they become very, uncomfortable. ID attempts to bring (God) into all realms of scientific method,the Catholic position is to insert Divine intervention were they deem fit,
(at what point does a human gain an immortal soul?)I'm not so sure that making these people or allies would be in the best interest of science

Coyne is talking through his hat when he says, "neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal [Cardinal Schoenborn], 'an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.' " From --- http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.... That is exactly what neo-Darwinism is.

— Andy H.

This process of continuous evolution, called by scientists chemical complexification, has a certain intrinsic natural directionality in that the more complex an organism becomes the more determined is its future. This does not necessarily mean, however, that there need be a person directing the process, nor that the process is necessarily an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" as Cardinal Schönborn describes it. It is precisely the fertility of the universe and the interaction of chance and necessity in that universe which are responsible for the directionality. Thus far science.

... In an online discussion devoted to the issue [of evolution vs. intelligent design], one individual said that he couldn't really understand what the controversy was about. He argued that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, exists outside of the world He creates, and expects us to believe in Him through faith alone, then surely He would not have left any traces in His creation which would provide an empirical alternative to that faith. Viewed this way, the world discovered through science -- including evolution and the big bang -- is simply the divinely opaque means through which God created the world we now see.

In contrast, there are a great many religious individuals who believe that God is not something which one can fit inside a test-tube, and that it is a mistake to treat the belief in God as an empirical hypothesis to be tested inside a lab or a class devoted to science. They believe that the very act of attempting to demonstrate the existence of God is itself destructive of true faith.

ALso, Coyne is taking what should be a scientific issue --- evolution vs. irreducible complexity --- and trying to change it into a theological issue.

— Andy H.

All this is saying to me that religion is basically irrelevant unless you get something personal out of it. (Unless you go to the heaven/hell thing at which point I would rather go to hell as a decent human than heaven where that isn't a requirement.)

The church is sort of codifying that, no?

"What's wrong with evangelical atheism?"

Well, as an atheist, the problem is not trying to "convert" people to atheism, but trying to decide which kind of atheism you are going to push. Nearly every philosophical viewpoint has an atheisitic version, and I can tell you from personal experience that atheists can be diametrically and violently opposed in their world views.

If LDS-ers and JWs and the rest can come knocking on doors to spread their philosophy, then Secular Humanists, Utilitarians, Brights, Naturalists, and the rest ought to be able to do the same.

The problem with the "one less god" quote is that Christians, for instance, believe in their god not because they have rational arguments against the other gods, but because they are told all those other gods are false and take it as a matter of faith. Same with Muslims, same with Zoroastrians, etc.

The Catholic church,along with many other denominations,have experienced a drastic reduction in membership, particularly in Europe.It maybe conceived that in order to bolster their failing position,courting the science world may prove advantageous.

— JONBOY

It would seem that the Catholic church is perfectly comfortable, to a point, with evolution,and the way life unfolded on earth.If however science should in some way question the existence of god, they become very, uncomfortable.

ID attempts to bring (God) into all realms of scientific method,the Catholic position is to insert Divine intervention were they deem fit, (at what point does a human gain an immortal soul?)

I'm not so sure that making these people or allies would be in the best interest of science

Hmmm. If we can prove that our universe is a closed system which displays no evidence for "magic" i.e meddling by a god, this disproves god? How?

In reading the actual article, it is pretty clear to me (as, admittedly, a Catholic) that he is making a statement of faith regarding the source of the inspiration toward charity, and not an affirmation of empirical evidence.

Um, good luck with that.

"three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, 'an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;'"

Do you all agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?

The encyclical is not an expression of the relationship between religion and science. Science is not a topic, from what I saw in a perusal of the document.

It's put-up or shut-up time. What part of that article shows that the pope was not arguing from the existence and growth of religious orders to the reality of supernatural charity?

— bhudda

What part of that article shows that the pope was not arguing from the existence and growth of religious orders to the reality of supernatural charity?

Despite the great advances made in science and technology, each day we see how much suffering there is in the world on account of different kinds of poverty, both material and spiritual. Our times call for a new readiness to assist our neighbours in need.

The whole debate over science vs. religion is just beating around a bush that I like to call the Afterlife Test. The test goes like this:
1. Die
2. Observe what happens
3. Report your findings

You see where the difficulty comes in. Really, there shouldn't be any clash between science and religion, because science is supposed to be all about curiosity, and religion is supposed to be about morality. But that's theory, and theory and practice aren't always on speaking terms.

BRAVO Chuckc! Buddha was annoying and completely missed the point. Father Coyne was stating that not only is DI (and by extension CS) not science, it's bad theology. The Catholic Church wants nothing to do with it. Pope John Paul II was clear that the Church accepts the truths revealed by science but states that some things are BEYOND science (i.e. the properties and origin of the soul) I wonder if some of the people posting here, that claim to be atheists are posers, trying to make PT look bad. Evangelism is annoying, it is just as annoying coming from a fundie, Jehovah's witness, or atheist.

Your argument implies that the article is a comprehensive summary of the encyclical; [...]

wow do I feel dumb, sucked into arguing with a troll...and a poser - buddha is Hovind? as in drdino? ok I'm done

You can take things out of context, misrepresent peoples' staments as it pleases you, and use these misrepresentations to make your arguments, but that doesn't make them true.

See Defending Naturalism as a Worldview.

— Budda

I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

— Budda

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....

Bhuddha... yes... when you decide to step off the 'wheel of dogma' expect to be howled at.
The 'Hero's Journey'...... not too many can take that path.

That wheel is constantly being created by zero dimensioners, omega pointers, new agers, new hermetics, new alchemists, Gnostic's the list is endless even Behe hinted that Astrology would not conflict with his science/religion world view. That's the funny thing to me, the 'hints' that religion is supposed to provide to ones understanding of life the universe and everything are so rigid that it makes me wonder that without indoctrination at an early age how can they survive? Essentially they must take the path they are on if they are to keep the coffers full and the women out.
Now reintroducing Exorcism in Rome keeps the psychoanalysts at bay why not advanced courses in tarot card reading as well?
In fact make it compulsory so the word wasters think before they spout.

That said there is no dishonor in a little tolerance to question begging as long as they are engaged and defeated when trying to claim for god what is Cesar's.

What amuses me is the amount of words that non science aware theologians can tie themselves up with to 'prove' their conclusion which is usually received wisdom but as I look around more, the limits of their own imagination and creativity, to just plain ignorance of history, art, science and the use of language...no not philosophy ...see history its all been done already and now whats left is mangled to the point of uselessness with postmodernism.

Coyne must get into real fits when some of his brethren expound, but if you read any theological text that tests the limits there will be a central statement that says "yes, science is right so lets adjust our reality goggles", quickly followed by a tortured rendering ....no pandering of contorted word play to believers at different levels. Obscurantism at its best.
Produce your god then go in peace!

PS for Budda

Incidentally, Karl Popper wasn't advocating the principle of falsifiability as a criterion of knowledge. The principle of falsifiability was intended simply as a line of demarcation between empirical, scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge -- which could include mathematics, philosophy, or even religion. But even so, there are problems with the principle of falsifiability, at least as advocated by Karl Popper (in both its earlier and later forms), which is why people familiar with the philosophy of science consider the two views to be primarily of historical interest, and instead emphasize testability.

But to take this one step further, advocating a philosophic view which ruled out philosophic views as a form of knowledge would seem, at best, highly problematic.

Timothy Chase question begs:
But to take this one step further, advocating a philosophic view which ruled out philosophic views as a form of knowledge would seem, at best, highly problematic.

If you don't want to know the answer then why do you ask ?

Budda,
I get what you're saying there but talking like that probably won't help you get a bj next time you go out. When someone's god interferes with your life or my life, then it is time to ask them to produce the god. Before that, well, I believe lots of crazy things, they may not be about god but they are certainly things that not everyone agrees with. And, although I know that I might be a touch touched in some of my beliefs, they make me happy, and jesus.f.christ, if you can't be happy then you're gonna be sad.

Granted, these guys work for the church so when they speak they are intruding a little but hey, there is a gray area there and we all have to make our own calls. Also, in terms of incremental change, the Catholics are pretty friendly to evidence. It wasn't always that way. And, the logic you are employing seems a bit misplaced in your dis-proving god thing.

Spike,

I'm not sure you get the 1 less god quote. Your reply is the reason...

Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box
Religion, is a smile on a dog.

BWE
Nice one on the dating advice !
That's how most conversions happen BTW !!
I would go further, the inscrutable 'that's interesting but do you like trapezes ?'

And right after "Damn woman, your thighs look like they could hold a greased pig stuck for five minutes" in the pick up line hall of fame.

aaaarrrrrrgghhhhhhhhh
the MAGIC word thighs
oops

Abra kazaam. There are many others too. I guess it doesn't matter if you derail a thread at midnight Pacific time.

Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box Religion, is a smile on a dog.

— BWE

BWE Nice one on the dating advice ! That's how most conversions happen BTW !! I would go further, the inscrutable 'that's interesting but do you like trapezes ?'

— k.e.

And right after "Damn woman, your thighs look like they could hold a greased pig stuck for five minutes" in the pick up line hall of fame.

— BWE

The quote:

"In truth, the entire history of the church is a history of holiness"

is entirely valid, considering that holiness, the state of being "holy", cannot be empirically tested.

It is a tautology, in a way - as the church is, to many of its adherents, the sole source and conveyer of holiness, by definition it's history is holy. But until anyone on either side of the aisle asserts that there is an testable, measurable quality of being holy, the statement is perfectly valid.

The analogy of the pope saying "the moon is made of green cheese" is an invalid analogy, for "moon", "cheese", and to a slightly lesser extent, "green", are all empirically testable ("green" is slightly subjective, as different cultures do perceive colours differently, but by defining your terms at the start the question could be treated empirically). Therefore, it is a question which can be tested scientifically.

And k.e. - Timothy isn't question begging, he's pointing out an inherent paradox. If you present the philosophical stance that belief in god is an invalid philosophical stance because it can't be proven, any philosophical stance that cannot be proven is likewise invalid - including yours.

"buddha" wrote:

If the pope had said the moon is made of green cheese, I'd call that bullshit, but it seems that you'd look for some larger context in which you might understand the blessed words of the "Holy Father". Perhaps you might redefine the words "moon", "green" and "cheese", or say that I don't understand these words in the original Italian. When the pope says, "In truth, the entire history of the church is a history of holiness", I call bullshit, but you bend over backwards to lick the pope's arse. I see no point trying to communicate with you.

"buddha" seems rather unclear on several important concepts, including: respect for the beliefs of others, non-literal or multi-layered meanings of words and statements, and explaining someone else's statements without expecting others to agree with them. I humbly suggest that he find a more appropriate handle, and learn to communicate respectfully before he tries to communicate with anyone. And speaking of humble, maybe he should also bone up on the concept of humility.

Shinobi said:
And k.e. - Timothy isn't question begging, he's pointing out an inherent paradox. If you present the philosophical stance that belief in god is an invalid philosophical stance because it can't be proven, any philosophical stance that cannot be proven is likewise invalid - including yours.

Sorry Shinobi not syllogism.
Mere deduction from cause and effect no philosophy involved just historical observation. Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven ?
That in its most basic sense IS senseless.

However, merely linking to a philosophy paper written by someone else is a bit like stating as some sort of irrefutable argument against anything someone writes, "You fool! Obviously you have not read 'The Critique of Pure Reason.'".

As a naturalist, do you believe it is logically possible (even if the current evidence makes this highly improbable) for science to disprove naturalism some day? As a naturalist, do you believe that if naturalism were overthrown by a purely empirical investigation, that the scientific method would necessarily be overthrown as well?

It is a tautology, in a way - as the church is, to many of its adherents, the sole source and conveyer of holiness, by definition it's history is holy.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court.

— buddha

Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

— buddha

The Atheist Who Calls Himself Buddha For No Apparent Reason wrote:

I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court.

First, how successful have atheist-evangelists been in convincing people to become atheists? I don't see a lot of success here, therefore I can't call it a "sustainable strategy" for anything.

Second, the number of atheists who become religious later in life -- sometimes fanatically so -- also argues against the "sustainability" of your "strategy."

So, what you're saying is that religious folk, those that explore the state that they call spiritual, shouldn't come out against the bizarre declarations of the church of eternal idiocy, housed secretly in the janitor's closet at the DI?

Budda, I'm no friend of religion but this seems like a little bit of overexuberance. God is whatever you define it to be. I can always define god out of a box. The difference between me and the fundies is that I make sure to define god outside of anything that could make any difference to anything. Go ahead, ridicule my belief in god. Lets see you define it first.

??
As a matter of fact, I find the concept of god as a very useful shorthand for many things. I don't worship anything but then again, my unique set of hang-ups don't require me to do that. Why do people go to s&m places and get spanked? And pay for it? I think the worship part is sometimes similar to that. But my personal hang-ups are what makes life interesting, unique and fun for me. I bet you've got a few of your own. Care to share? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

Comment #76816 Posted by Raging Bee on February 1, 2006 03:05 PM (e) The Atheist Who Calls Himself Buddha For No Apparent Reason wrote: I'd rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court.

PS for Budda Incidentally, Karl Popper wasn't advocating the principle of falsifiability as a criterion of knowledge. The principle of falsifiability was intended simply as a line of demarcation between empirical, scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge --- which could include mathematics, philosophy, or even religion. But even so, there are problems with the principle of falsifiability, at least as advocated by Karl Popper (in both its earlier and later forms), which is why people familiar with the philosophy of science consider the two views to be primarily of historical interest, and instead emphasize testability. But to take this one step further, advocating a philosophic view which ruled out philosophic views as a form of knowledge would seem, at best, highly problematic.

— I

Timothy Chase question begs: But to take this one step further, advocating a philosophic view which ruled out philosophic views as a form of knowledge would seem, at best, highly problematic. If you don't want to know the answer then why do you ask ?

— k.e.

And k.e. - Timothy isn't question begging, he's pointing out an inherent paradox. If you present the philosophical stance that belief in god is an invalid philosophical stance because it can't be proven, any philosophical stance that cannot be proven is likewise invalid - including yours.

— Shinobi

Jesus. Do you guys not get how stinkin irrelevant that all is? I'm with k.e.
I'd like Wild Turkey on the rocks please.

I linked to that paper for its section "A Brief Ethnography of Contemporary Naturalism", which is relevant to my comments. Carrier asked some naturalist philosophers two questions:

As a naturalist, do you believe it is logically possible (even if the current evidence makes this highly improbable) for science to disprove naturalism some day? As a naturalist, do you believe that if naturalism were overthrown by a purely empirical investigation, that the scientific method would necessarily be overthrown as well?

— Bubba

Almost all of the philosophers answered Yes/No. The paper is much longer than I remember; I'm sorry I wasn't more specific with my linking. I won't bother with your Gish gallop.

PS

Sorry -- I meant "Budda," your original sig, as opposed to "Buddha" or "Bubba." I am just not used to seeing anyone call himself "Budda."

So are they being hypocritical? Is that what some of are saying?

And, FWIW, Buddhists are generally considered to be atheists and the Buddha himself was agnostic. It is not, in any way, contradictory to be a Buddhist and an atheist or agnostic.

Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven ?

Morality, perhaps? There are no atoms of justice, or mercy. These concepts are subjective; they cannot be proven. Yet these things are considered important by humankind, and debated by philosophers.

Do you consider that the concept of 'justice' or 'mercy' or 'hope' or any other subjective concepts humans use as a basis for their actions are useless? If so, how do you choose to live your life?

Also, k.e.:(sorry for double posting) - that something can be proven, or disproven, is in itself a philosophical stance. All formal systems require the adoption of some form of fundamental axiom.

And for Buddha - well I'd certainly agree with you that 'the church's history is one of holiness' does not square with my view of (a) what is holy, and (b) the often bloody history of christianity in Europe. But as 'holiness' is an entirely subjective concept, it is not wrong the same way that, say, suggesting the moon is made of green cheese is wrong. I can't empirically test what is holy.

Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven ?

— shinobi

Morality, perhaps? There are no atoms of justice, or mercy. These concepts are subjective; they cannot be proven. Yet these things are considered important by humankind, and debated by philosophers. Do you consider that the concept of 'justice' or 'mercy' or 'hope' or any other subjective concepts humans use as a basis for their actions are useless? If so, how do you choose to live your life?

In any case, I can think of few things which are potentially as rewarding as the study of philosophy.

However, since you are here, I will ask you two questions: 1. Which form of naturalism do you endorse: methodological naturalism, or methodological and metaphysical naturalism? 2. Do you believe your form of naturalism is at least potentially falsifiable and therefore not demonstratably true, or do you belief it is not falsifiable, and therefore unscientific? Or do you see some other alternative?

In any case, I can think of few things which are potentially as rewarding as the study of philosophy.

— Lenny the Great

Sorry, can't resist: ....

And for Buddha - well I'd certainly agree with you that 'the church's history is one of holiness' does not square with my view of (a) what is holy, and (b) the often bloody history of christianity in Europe. But as 'holiness' is an entirely subjective concept, it is not wrong the same way that, say, suggesting the moon is made of green cheese is wrong. I can't empirically test what is holy.

Re " 1. Die
2. Observe what happens
3. Report your findings"

Where's John Edwards when ya need 'em? (Did I get his name right?)

Henry

And, if Europe and Japan are any reasonable guide to human behaviors, we should hit a 40%-50% agnostic/atheist/irreligious saturation point in anywhere from a few decades to another century or so.

Shinobi
In reply to:

Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven ?

Morality, perhaps? There are no atoms of justice, or mercy. These concepts are subjective; they cannot be proven. Yet these things are considered important by humankind, and debated by philosophers.

Do you consider that the concept of 'justice' or 'mercy' or 'hope' or any other subjective concepts humans use as a basis for their actions are useless? If so, how do you choose to live your life?

I was wondering if you were going to say that;)
So one could say ....love thy neighbor.... even if he is a philosopher:)

Shinobi
My point was if a philosophy conflates science and politics/religion then that is the same as conflating science and pseudoscience ...useless to either pursuit.
If philosophy is a method of thought to justify a logically non-contradictory world view then join the queue.

Question: How do you get a philosopher off your porch?
Answer: Pay for the pizza.

Y'know, the 1 samuel 15 thing is no worse than lot and sodom and gamorrah. I don't have the passage but lot offers up his daughters instead of som eangels for the men of the town to ravage. I guess he figured it was better to have the town gangrape his daughters than to let angels have to deal with the townfolk. I've always thought that angels shoould have been able to take care of themselves.

Just a question but budda, were you raised in a christian family? Sounds like you got some aggresion to take out.

I linked to Carrier's paper (and specifically the section "A Brief Ethnography of Contemporary Naturalism") to show that my view is not way out on a limb, but that it is widely held by naturalist philosophers. I'm not asking you to read Carrier's entire paper, but only to note this.

— budda

Sorry Shinobi not syllogism. Mere deduction from cause and effect no philosophy involved just historical observation. Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven? That in its most basic sense IS senseless.

— k.e.

Jesus. Do you guys not get how stinkin irrelevant that all is? I'm with k.e. I'd like Wild Turkey on the rocks please.

— BWE

So now budda takes one passage in the Bible, projects his own hatred into it, and uses that as an excuse to disregard all of the good stuff the rest of us know is in there, with no further discussion. Just like a faux-Christian gay-basher.

1. There are certainly senses in which I would regard myself as a methodological and metaphysical naturalist. However, these terms are so vague that if one does not try to defend what one means by them, they are almost meaningless. [...]

[...] Some individuals might believe, for example, that being a metaphysical naturalist would necessarily involve what is referred to as a naturalized epistemology. That is anathema to me, and I would regard it as being roughly on the same level as extreme deconstructionism or radical relativism.

2. One of the individuals who Carrier interviewed was Evan Fales. I took a course from Mr. Fales at the University of Iowa, oddly enough in the philosophy of science. I know for a fact that his view (at least as he expressed it in the context of the course) was that the principle of falsifiability is no longer tenable. [...]

3. If you will notice, Carrier asked the "naturalist philosophers" whether it was "logically possible... to disprove... naturalism." No mention of the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism were made. Nothing regarding naturalized epistemology. No explicit mention of the anachronism of the "principle of falsifiability." [...]

[...] Budda, on the other hand, has endorsed methodological and metaphysical naturalism (which I wouldn't see as necessarily being a problem), and Budda also endorsed the view that "naturalism is potentially falsifiable in many ways, but it has not been falsified."

6. I do not consider "me-tooing" an informal poll to be a proper philosophic method. I would strongly suggest to Budda that if he wishes to make philosophic arguments that he expand his repertoire -- and preferably read more than one author.

I could also cite, Duhem (for Duhem's Thesis --- I will have to look that up in my notes), Quine (for the argument as to why Duhem's Thesis eliminates the principle of falsifiability as expressed in "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism"), a major author in the philosophy of science who concluded that Quine was right on this point (Rudolph Carnap), and sources which indicate this controversy has been over for quite some time.

If you know how to define methodological naturalism and ...

— Buddha

[k.e.] Why would anyone bother with any philosophical stance that cannot be proven ? Morality, perhaps? There are no atoms of justice, or mercy. These concepts are subjective; they cannot be proven.

— Shinobi

Do you consider that the concept of 'justice' or 'mercy' or 'hope' or any other subjective concepts humans use as a basis for their actions are useless? If so, how do you choose to live your life?

Budda (I think that's what the kids in the local middle school are calling pot now: Budda)

Any how back on the point which is actually off point but, since we are using non-euclidean geometry, our parralel discussion must surely cross the original topic at some point, is close enough to the new point which is that there isn't really much point to this but here goes anyway-

Do you have some religion in your past which was shoved down your throat and left a bad taste? I do. You want to hear it? Ok. Sure. I'll tell you.

Back a few years, my wife (who was my girlfriend at the time) insisted that I attend a church service. Now that was significant because I had never actually attended a church service before (My mom was a Biology/Botony prof and my dad was a history prof back when Marx was still read a lot, so not really much religion from them), in fact, I sort of thought that people had figured out the load of crap part of it and used church only for social purposes. You might think that my wife was religious, being as how she wanted me to go to church but you'd be wrong. She hadn't been to church since she was little and went with a friend. She just figured I should go to church to see what it was all about. So of course I agreed (she was my girlfriend then so I agreed to a lot of strange things but that is for a different story). ANyway, so we pick this one that was hust down the hill from her apartment, Glad Tidings it was called. It was a pretty little building with a nice garden out front, I think they grew hollyhocks. Sorry, gotta go for now, I'll finish this story in a few minutes in my next post.

Timothy
Thanks for the wiki link and the blizzard of associated links
I have now wasted 2 hours I can't get back, you rotten person :)
I have now re-arrived at my stating point.
Which seeing how Shinobi and yourself have played this as far as I can see, fits the trinity and that thingy that ends with "life everlasting" into perspective. Sorry to show my ignorance on that, I understand it from a semiotic viewpoint only. The uniforms are OK and the music goes down a treat.
No problem, good for you, the CC and their sisters worldview is just a little esoteric for me, interesting (to me)as much for what is within their horizons and even more for what is outside.
And of course how it continues to morf, pity I won't be around in the same time it took them to back down on the fatwa issued to Galileo, maybe they just wanted to be sure the music of the spheres was not being broadcast from beyond Jupiter or wherever Voyager one is now. Speaking of fatwas, you just have to love those jokers from AlQueda revving up GWB on the "one true word of god" issue don't you?

Shinobi of course every religion is a worldview but when you say
All formal systems require the adoption of some form of fundamental axiom
I hope you don't mean religious dogma and any theology/philosophy that supports it, is a fundamental axiom, as in say nuclear physics where theory/models have been confirmed with measured results.
As I said before, sure.... a non-contradictory logical system that covers morals and scientific analysis of nature would be 'nice' though I fail to see how one can do justice to both without taking a purely political/identity position on the former and a cold hard amoral non-theistic position on the latter... how many PhD's do Penrose,Behe,and all the rest of them have between them?.
Its really the old render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Cesar's is it not?...ahh while you are awake after a couple of coffees ..except in Behe's case ...maybe a walk on the wild side for him or perhaps he should have popped into one of those Tarot card readers he drove by when he thought 'wouldn't it be nice to read the mind of god' and got a reading.

Timothy Thanks for the wiki link and the blizzard of associated links I have now wasted 2 hours I can't get back, you rotten person :) I have now re-arrived at my stating point.

— k.e.

Which seeing how Shinobi and yourself have played this as far as I can see, fits the trinity and that thingy that ends with "life everlasting" into perspective. Sorry to show my ignorance on that, I understand it from a semiotic viewpoint only. The uniforms are OK and the music goes down a treat. No problem, good for you, the CC and their sisters worldview is just a little esoteric for me, interesting (to me) as much for what is within their horizons and even more for what is outside.

—

In all this talk, which just repeats the same thing over and over, no one has explained how all the known universe came into being from nothing (before the Big Bang). If nothing, God is definitely intelligent.

Posted by Barry Campbell on February 2, 2006 04:25 PM (e) In all this talk, which just repeats the same thing over and over, no one has explained how all the known universe came into being from nothing (before the Big Bang). If nothing, God is definitely intelligent.

Comment #77102 Posted by Barry Campbell on February 2, 2006 04:25 PM (e) In all this talk, which just repeats the same thing over and over, no one has explained how all the known universe came into being from nothing (before the Big Bang). If nothing, God is definitely intelligent.

Posted by steve s on February 2, 2006 06:04 PM (e) ... Perhaps you are looking for a physics-oriented website?

In all this talk, which just repeats the same thing over and over, no one has explained how all the known universe came into being from nothing (before the Big Bang). If nothing, God is definitely intelligent.

I don't know any like this, because there's not a comparable threat to physics education. But somewhere like PhysLink that Barry guy could find information about the Big Bang theory, if he really cares, which of course he doesn't, he just wanted to make what he thought was a devastating argument against evolution, which of course isn't.

Posted by steve s on February 2, 2006 07:01 PM (e) I don't know any like this, because there's not a comparable threat to physics education. But somewhere like PhysLink that Barry guy could find information about the Big Bang theory, if he really cares, which of course he doesn't, he just wanted to make what he thought was a devastating argument against evolution, which of course isn't.

physics really hasn't come under coordinated assault. The opponents of modern physics are mostly lone cranks writing manifestoes about how Einstein was wrong, how to build perputual motion engines, etc. Imagine a whole lot of Charlie Wagner types, but writing about physics. Easy to ignore. Nothing comparable to the Discovery Institute.

Posted by steve s on February 2, 2006 07:25 PM (e) physics really hasn't come under coordinated assault. The opponents of modern physics are mostly lone cranks writing manifestoes about how Einstein was wrong, how to build perputual motion engines, etc. Imagine a whole lot of Charlie Wagner types, but writing about physics. Easy to ignore. Nothing comparable to the Discovery Institute.

We already know what that's going to look like. Crea-uh I mean Intelligent Design Physics:

The Universe is too Flinkywisty* to have come about naturally, ergo Good Old Designer is required.

*--Flinkwisty is a placeholder word which can be replaced with anything, for example 'sensitive', 'improbable', 'low-entropy', 'hot', 'cold', 'blue', whatever, it won't change the argument.

Re "Perhaps you are looking for a physics-oriented website?"
Re "I don't know any like this, because there's not a comparable threat to physics education."

Maybe not a threat, but I've found websites that deny the big bang, black holes, quarks, and/or the infinite range of gravity. (With some overlap among those denials.) But unlike the typical antievolutionist sites, those largely describe testable (at least potentially) models for what they are (or were) saying - which makes them in some ways more interesting than the anti-evo sites.

Henry

In response to Henry...

I'm incredibly skeptical of anything published on the web regarding physics. It is a field that is, because of the inherent underlying mathematical complexity, much more inaccessible to most people than biology. While sometimes there are laymen sites that offer decent bio info (but most often not), I have very, very, very rarely seen anything phyiscs oriented that was viable.

I suppose my point is that unless the publisher of the site has a PhD in physics and reviews the info, I'd be HIGHLY skeptical of it. It's easy to make claims and propose models, but that says nothing about correctness.

I'm still trying to figure out how any amount of intelligence would allow ex nihilo creation of something.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough. Or maybe it's just an empty theistic platitude.

AC
Projection... remember?
I don't know if it is an inferiority complex or some sort of narcissism. I blame it on their mothers with an Electra Complex

But I'm leaning toward a just plain willfully ignorant designer who hates educated people.

They love anything that's not funny and replace it all with identity politics then deny deny deny.

The kind of thing that makes them want to invade Poland.

I blame it on their mothers with an Electra Complex

Comment #77285 Posted by AD on February 3, 2006 10:47 AM (e) In response to Henry... I'm incredibly skeptical of anything published on the web regarding physics. It is a field that is, because of the inherent underlying mathematical complexity, much more inaccessible to most people than biology. While sometimes there are laymen sites that offer decent bio info (but most often not), I have very, very, very rarely seen anything phyiscs oriented that was viable. I suppose my point is that unless the publisher of the site has a PhD in physics and reviews the info, I'd be HIGHLY skeptical of it. It's easy to make claims and propose models, but that says nothing about correctness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam's razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam's razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam's razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam's razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam's razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Rev. Lenny evidently you aren't too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology.Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.The Omphalos argument says fossils are agod's hoax.If Miller claims a god has anything to do with the universe , he should demonstratethat, not put forth faith.OTHERwise, he is using Omphalos-events happen sequentially it merely appears, but creative mind deceives us really events happen before their causes! Whether creationist or liberalXian ., THE THEISTS USE omphalos. Wrong -headed as she was about ethics .Ayn Rand was right about theism.Why would agod want worship? Low self- esteem.Read George Smith on Occam's razor. SeeWeisz's THE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY ABOUT CAUSALITY. Coyne and Miler obfuscate.Their notion of a god adds nothing to the understanding. Word salad is inthe eye of aneara blind fellow!

Rev. Lenny evidently you aren't too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology.Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.The Omphalos argument says fossils are agod's hoax.If Miller claims a god has anything to do with the universe , he should demonstratethat, not put forth faith.OTHERwise, he is using Omphalos-events happen sequentially it merely appears, but creative mind deceives us really events happen before their causes! Whether creationist or liberalXian ., THE THEISTS USE omphalos. Wrong -headed as she was about ethics .Ayn Rand was right about theism.Why would agod want worship? Low self- esteem.Read George Smith on Occam's razor. SeeWeisz's THE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY ABOUT CAUSALITY. Coyne and Miler obfuscate.Their notion of a god adds nothing to the understanding. Word salad is inthe eye of aneara blind fellow!Yes, my typing -arg.

No, the posts are word salad. Impugning others' intelligence when you write like a third grader on mescaline is pretty rich.

And I think it's Miller, et al's very point that belief in God as such doesn't add to, or subtract from, scientific understanding.

Well, this person has admitted that their typing doesn't help, but still doesn't seem to fully realize how running half the words together contributes to the effect, if not the intent, of word salad ...

Idon't know if my last comments caame through. Sufficient to say read Richard Carrier's book on naturalism, George Smith's on explanation versus faith, Michael Martin's on atheism. By saying agod has nothing to do with as an explanation Miller tacitly admits agod is unneeded. B udda and ke talk for me. Yes ,science can't disprove the tooth fairy. But have faith any way! See Antony Flew on the imaginary gardiner i an anthology. Ask me what Imean.

Idon't know if my last comments caame through. Sufficient to say read Richard Carrier's book on naturalism, George Smith's on explanation versus faith, Michael Martin's on atheism. By saying agod has nothing to do with as an explanation Miller tacitly admits agod is unneeded. B udda and ke talk for me. Yes ,science can't disprove the tooth fairy. But have faith any way! See Antony Flew on the imaginary gardiner i an anthology. Ask me what Imean.

MLL
SLOW DOWN !
U must be on a 56k connection.
Your multiple posts and poor proof reading completely blow your points.
I don't see that beating up those who are on the same side contribute to the debate. I'm sure at least some of them know the limitations of their own arguement.

W ellGod i ssuch as mallm in ded id eaanyw ay tha tit require sa wor dgame asa div ersionfro mthein anity.!!! THE THEISTS D ON"T!! KN OWEVE RYTH ING!!!

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be given for belief. They say even though science shows no teleology but causality. They have faith there is teleology.-the Omphalos argument! Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god's hoax; the other natural selection is a secondary force, creative mind , primary when they can't show a creative mind. Furthermore, Occam's razor shows natural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam. Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries, but we can criticize their obtuseness.

... evidently you aren't too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology. Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.

Yes, my typing -arg.

blah blah blah...

But is metaphysical naturalism a scientific theory?

So, Intelligent Design belittles God? How? I think that if someone would just look around them, they would see that there is no way that this planet, even this universe can be the result of nothing. It is impossible to have everything come from nothing. All of your "wisdom" and "intelligence" just came from some random goo, or bang. Wow. I think some people need to get over their hate of God and their obsession of themself and face the facts straight. Evolution is a religion, there is nothing unbiased about it. All I ever see is a bunch of people blatantly opposed to God.

I live at 77466 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?