NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[Biff]

....some might argue that evolutionary science, especially in terms of some of the unproven theoretical underpinnings, is a bit like picking up a wet rock and saying "a hah....this rock is wet. Obviously rocks come from waterfalls". Silly analogy but still, the fact is that evolution is a massive body of science crossing an immense range of disciplines. Some of these disciplines are very empirical and provable. Some of the underpinnings and other areas of the evolutionary model are not empirical or provable and there remain gaps in the evolutionary model, or the evidence for the evolutionary model, that are pretty foundational and important but almost universally ignored by the majority of armchair experts here and elsewhere.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think the biggest gripe I have with ID and the organizations trying diligently to get it into public schools is that they are aware of the great flaws of ID and that they still don't care about it. They want people to think its a science, they know its not. They want people to think there is a lot of controversy over evolution, there isn't.

They focus often on the same argument that Evolution is just a 'theory' and misuse the word since Science's definition of the word is different than the common usage in the English language.

Its that they feel the end's justify the means; that this heathen Science is hurting their beliefs the must combat it and ID is that strategy.

Its similar to the way Tobacco companies used AD agencies to attempt to convince people that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Their goal from the start was for them to convince the pubic there was a debate amongst scientists about smoking and its health effects. The goal was never to prove them right, they just wanted to give the perception of a debate over smoking, thus delaying the inevitable and getting as much profit while they could.

Much like Global Warming debate, CNN brings on 2 people, 1 that says its real and one that disagrees. Where to be more accurate and fair they should have 10 Scientists on a panel; 9 that say Global Warming is real and 1 that debates its wrong. Goal is to muddy the debates and even stir up partisanship over it, which they've done very successfully in the USA.

Evolution has withstood 150 years of peer debate/review and more importantly has a MOUNTAIN of evidence from many many fields of science; most recently Genetics.

To say Evolution is 'just a theory' is such a propaganda objective of the ID supporters. Their goal is to convince the average non science background person to think "Oh its just a Theory, so obviously it might be wrong."

Its like standing at the bottom rocky area at a huge waterfall, picking up a dry rock and saying "look here is a dry rock, your waterfall theory is wrong, there is no waterfall!"

I would disagree that the mountain of evidence for evolution comes from what is understood today as genetics. Most of the evidence supporting evolution originates from observation, and anthropology. Modern Genetics is only recently contributing to the surmounting evidence for evolution. The reason why evolution is a theory comes from a general misunderstanding of what makes a law and what makes a theory. A law is something that governs the way the universe behaves whilst a theory is an explanation for how things in the universe behave. The law of gravity is something that is understood to exist, and is observable but little is understood about the exact underpinning of this Law. The theory of evolution on the other hand, offers great insight into the biological mechanisms of observable organisms. It however does not detail a series of mechanisms by which life will arise, It simply explains it. This pretty much clarifies the whole Theory vs. Law debate.

Religious individuals do not think science "Heathen", however ignornat individuals tend to class inanimate unthinking entites as "Heathen, Blind etc". Furthermore, whereas debates of evolution are of little consequence to the eventual governmental policy, Global warming is a much more sensitive topic. Global warming is sometihng i believe should be an issue focused keenly on. However, as things tend to go, celebrity and media alike have thrown this debate and opened it to ridicule. Fact of the matter is that global climate change is real, and it is only recently that we have learned that our actions have direct effect upon it. I believe that we should invest much into learning how to control our effect on the environment rather than plain reducing it. It is a valuable tool to control the climate of an entire planet, but we should careful tread on this ground as we risk destroying the balanced equilibrium of earth.

Finally, Evolution is a theory, it is just that. Anyone who thinks this discredits Evolution does not understand what a theory is. The theory of relativity is mostly been a proven fact (Quantum nutjobs aside). Theorys, like laws, can range from viable, supported facets of thought to trashy, relatively poorly created entities of mentally handicapped individuals. What matters in the end is our ability to discern cream from crap.

[Burninator]

Anyone who wants to read more about the Evolution v. ID debate I highly recommend this book by Micheal Shermer.

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design

Science is on the defensive. Half of Americans reject the theory of evolution and intelligent-design campaigns are gaining ground. Classroom by classroom, creationism is overthrowing biology. In Why Darwin Matters, bestselling author Michael Shermer decodes the scientific evidence to show that evolution is not just a theory and illustrates how it achieves the design of life through the bottom-up process of natural selection. Shermer, once an evangelical Christian and a creationist, argues that intelligent-design proponents are invoking a combination of bad science, political antipathy, and flawed theology. He refutes their pseudoscientific arguments and then demonstrates why conservatives and people of faith can and should embrace evolution. Cutting the politics away from the facts, Why Darwin Matters is an incisive examination of what is at stake in the debate over evolution

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

I would disagree that the mountain of evidence for evolution comes from what is understood today as genetics. Most of the evidence supporting evolution originates from observation, and anthropology.

You misread my comment, I was stating 150 years worth (mountain of evidence) and 'most recently' Genetics. Genetics had the potential to disprove or turn the theory of Evolution on its head; but instead has now added to that mountain of evidence.

Religious individuals do not think science "Heathen", however ignornat individuals tend to class inanimate unthinking entites as "Heathen, Blind etc". Furthermore, whereas debates of evolution are of little consequence to the eventual governmental policy, Global warming is a much more sensitive topic.

A great deal of people do think Science as heathen, certainly not all Religious people but a very significant number worldwide have a great deal of mistrust against science as they feel threatened by it in their religious viewpoints. There are certainly a lot of religious people who don't see the two as counterpoints but that they co-exist in harmony. However this debate is not between those who believe in the co-existence but rather those who believe one has to trump the other.

I'll agree Evolution is not as serious a debate as Global warming; but I would suggest that ID vs Evolution is a fight for the minds of people, global warming is the fight for our planet.

Finally, Evolution is a theory, it is just that. Anyone who thinks this discredits Evolution does not understand what a theory is. The theory of relativity is mostly been a proven fact (Quantum nutjobs aside). Theorys, like laws, can range from viable, supported facets of thought to trashy, relatively poorly created entities of mentally handicapped individuals. What matters in the end is our ability to discern cream from crap.

Thats the propaganda, those without a science background are too often easily swayed by comments such as "its just a theory." The fact that evolution cannot explain everything in our evolutionary time does not throw out the theory. The fact there are holes, does not throw out the theory.

We keep finding more of the missing links in evolution, we keep building the body of evidence for the theory. I just wish the average non science citizen of the world realized the immensity of the work and realize that its not some controversial theory.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Biff

....some might argue that evolutionary science, especially in terms of some of the unproven theoretical underpinnings, is a bit like picking up a wet rock and saying "a hah....this rock is wet. Obviously rocks come from waterfalls". Silly analogy but still, the fact is that evolution is a massive body of science crossing an immense range of disciplines. Some of these disciplines are very empirical and provable. Some of the underpinnings and other areas of the evolutionary model are not empirical or provable and there remain gaps in the evolutionary model, or the evidence for the evolutionary model, that are pretty foundational and important but almost universally ignored by the majority of armchair experts here and elsewhere.

Like all good scientists, we will gladly accept new theory's or if anything is found to contradict Evolution it would be peer reviewed and debated until accepted through the scientific method.

I don't discount anything about Evolution, its a theory that attempts to answer something on a huge scale that has occurred over such a huge plane of time that of course you'll start with a solid base theory and over 100's of years build up the collection of evidence to support it; or of course find evidence to disprove or contradict it.

Obviously the strength of this theory grows with the passage of time as more evidence is found and strengthens it. Of course there is holes, what did you expect from such a vast plane of time in our existence to study/examine from?

The venom of the Evolutionists comes from this topic, that creationist 'science' seeks to be tought beside such a Goliath of a theory with equal representation brings out the anger and ire of scientists and secularists who don't want their children indoctrinated in public schools by ID trying to disguise itself as a viable alternative theory to Evolution.

ID is a joke, its creationism trying to sneak its way into public school science. It has no place but in churches, bible collages, bible camps, home study, etc..

[Textcritic]

Wow.

I have about a dozen bones to pick through right now...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have about a dozen bones to pick through right now...

You are so late.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...For centuries the Bible was regarded as the literal word of God and a completely accurate historical record. During Europe's scientific revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, once it became obvious that much of what was written in the Bible was completely incompatible with observable evidence (such as a geocentric universe and the world only being 6000 years old, for example) the idea of the "metaphorical" Bible rose to popularity amongst mainstream Christianity. Now, particularly amongst fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the United States, sects that believe in a literal interpretations of the Bible are returning to prominence. These people cannot be dismissed as radicals either -- as Bobblehead pointed out, surveys show that nearly half of the American population has this view, putting them very much in the mainstream!

This goes for you, too, Cheese. This is only the first part of the story, and the problem with understanding the place of the "Bible" in ancient Judaism and Christianity is complicated by the problem that grand assumptions were made by ancient writers, historians, and proponents of various faith groups themselves surrounding the handling of so-called "sacred" texts. Quite simply, there is no manual on how to read scriptures in the ancient world because of centuries of overlapping tradition that was merely assumed from one generation to another.

It is true, that during the Middle Ages, the Bible was generally understood as an accurate and literal representation of history. It is also true that—as far as we know—most of the early Jews and Christians really believed that there actually was a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, and that life began just as the Scriptures declared it did. But what was the "function" of Scripture? For Jews, the Scriptures provided access to revelation about who God was and how he had acted through history. This was much the same for Christians, but with a substantial twist: Christians believed that Jesus Christ was the Word of God—that is, the ultimate expression who God was and is and will always be—and that the Scriptures could only be read through Jesus life and teachings. Our earliest examples of biblical interpretation within the early church bear this out: the Hebrew Bible had effectively become a repository of allegories that pertained to various elements of Christian theology.

Early Christians—and even the earliest Jews, for that matter—had few qualms about twisting what was written in Scripture to suit their own purposes. So much so that the Bible's purpose in the early church would be unrecognizable to most Christians today. So, actually, no. The earliest Christians were not at all concerned about the "literal meaning" in the Scriptures whatsoever. They were most interested in how the Old Testament was "fulfilled" in God's most fundamental expression: the life and teachings of Jesus. And this brings me to my problem with "Christianity", the Christian religion, and people's perception of religion generally, that I will outline below...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wow.

I have about a dozen bones to pick through right now...

Good. I was hoping your welcome perspectives would appear here. I always learn something.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by Thor

A great deal of people do think Science as heathen, certainly not all Religious people but a very significant number worldwide have a great deal of mistrust against science as they feel threatened by it in their religious viewpoints. There are certainly a lot of religious people who don't see the two as counterpoints but that they co-exist in harmony. However this debate is not between those who believe in the co-existence but rather those who believe one has to trump the other.

One of my main points. You have to be careful to distinguish between intelligent open individuals who do not view science as heretical or Religion as some big imposing force of oppression and closed minded idiots (like Richard Dawkins, and the defenders of DI). People are always quick to bash religion and relegate themselves to the safety of an atheist umbrella. Frankly thats a cowardly way of arguing. Being atheist does not make you enlightened by any inkling, it is the words you speak and the actions you take which justify your intelligence. Simple qualifications that have gone no further than most adolescents is juvenille and at best a laughable proposition.

[Textcritic]

Lately, I have been troubled in my own spiritual journey about the very function of "religion". I am a Christian. I was raised an evangelical, and I am quite content to remain in this tradition for reasons that I am still in the process of working out. Quite simply, I am most troubled by this: does my religion accurately reflect what its founder and icon intended and taught when he was alive? If we are able to strip the theological constructs that have been cobbled together around Jesus of Nazareth, what are we left with? A Galileean peasant who sought a new (or renewed?) kind of religious reform that sought to emphasize inward piety over outward expression. A fierce critic of the existing religious establishment who championed the cause of the poor, the marginalized, and the hopeless. A man who spoke openly about judgement for those who would make themselves into saints, and justice for those who had no delusions about their own social status. So, if Jesus was all of these things, how does this affect my own "religion"?

Jesus was a Jew, and because of his social standing, his geographical limitations and his own culture, he spoke to Jews. His followers were Jews. His "mission" was unto the Jews. His entire world was very thoroughly Jewish. For that reason, it only makes sense that his message adopted the deeply woven cultural fabric of Second Temple Judaism, but does this mean that Jesus was overly concerned about religion? About "Jewishness"?

I don't think so.

Religion and culture are far too closely intertwined to be easily disentangled, and I am coming to believe that we should not even bother to try. I am a "Christian" most certainly in large part because I am a Canadian of European descent. Just as Jesus was a Jew because he was, well, born Jewish. I think that had Jesus been Greek, or Roman, his message would have been similar in that he still would have championed the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized (incidently, is this not perhaps the reason why the Christian Church is thriving in developing countries? Could it have something to do with the fact that Jesus message resonates among the destitute?), but would likely also have spoken against the false sense of piety that accompanied offerings to the pantheon of Roman gods. Zeus would have been the supreme Lord of the Universe, but our devotion to him would be different than it had come to be construed.

I can't change the fact that religious strictures, dogma and traditions were developed around this truly remarkable figure who—in a very unique fashion—altered the focus of his followers away from the Temple, the rituals, the pomp and the omens and towards what really matters: altruism and virtue. I am in many ways bound to my Christian cultural distinction, and it is very much my religion. But in practice, I should like to think that my expression of my belief in God and in this man whom was claimed by others to be a god transcends my own orthodoxy.

Religion is not right, nor is it wrong, it simply is. And I think this is an important part of what Jesus sought to do: forget conversion. Forget sacrifice. Forget penance. Forget worship. Celebrate God in your relationship to one another. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." I think more accurately he was saying: "Look at me! I am a poor, partially literate craftsman who is hungry and tired and without a place to live. But I am feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and raising the dead! I am all about living my life for the benefit of others! This is my way! This is my truth! this is my life! And this is what matters to God!"

Why did the Jews hate Jesus? Why did they kill him? Because he threatened the very function of the religious establishment of which he was a part. With Jesus ethic and his practice in place among the masses—especially among the poor—the Temple became meaningless, and this made him a very dangerous man. I do not believe it was Jesus hope or his mission that humanity convert to Judaism; I certainly do not believe it was with the intent that everyone become Catholic or Protestant or Muslim. I believe that he believed that self-sacrifice was the key to spiritual satisfaction.

So. I will keep my religion. Not because I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I will keep it because it is apart of who I am, but it is no good unless I practice my religion (whatever it happens to be) the way Jesus practiced his.

[MarchHare]

Textcritic:

That was a truly inspiring and well-written post, which I hope you take as a high compliment indeed, since you and I are ostensibly on "opposite sides" of this issue*. I seriously hope some mod notices that post and grants you a red square.

That being said, I want to address one point:

Why did the Jews hate Jesus? Why did they kill him?

I've seen it written that the commonly-accepted view that the Jewish leaders killed Christ while Pilate washed his hands of the matter was one that was fabricated shortly after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as their religion. It would have been a hard sell to convince people that Jesus was there lord and saviour when he was executed by the Romans, so the story was altered to make the Jews, a convenient scapegoat, the true killers of Christ. This single act, of course, has sadly led to centuries of anti-semitism throughout history.

//

*Although are we really? I don't presume to know everything about you, but from what I've read of your posts, you seem to be the type of Christian I wished all were like; namely, you have a "live and let live" mentality (which is not a coincidence, I'm sure, given that this was an attitude preached by Jesus). As I've repeated numerous times throughout this thread, I find it perfectly acceptable to teach creationism privately in homes, churches, Sunday schools, and other places of worship -- just keep it out of the science curriculum in publicly-funded schools.

[Textcritic]

Thank you, MarchHare for the very kind words.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...I've seen it written that the commonly-accepted view that the Jewish leaders killed Christ while Pilate washed his hands of the matter was one that was fabricated shortly after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as their religion. It would have been a hard sell to convince people that Jesus was there lord and saviour when he was executed by the Romans, so the story was altered to make the Jews, a convenient scapegoat, the true killers of Christ. This single act, of course, has sadly led to centuries of anti-semitism throughout history.

It is pretty impossible to hold to this theory in light of the fact that dozens of Gospel narratives that retain traditions of Jesus' opposition to the "religious Jews", and their vociferous plots to kill him appear in Christian literature as early as the second century. Long before the Constantinian revolution.

It is true and unfortunate that the anti-Jewish polemic present in the New Testament has been so grossly misapplied throughout history. Nevertheless, there is really nothing upon which to assume that the Temple establishment was anything but vehemently opposed to Jesus of Nazareth, and for very good reason. In fact, many scholars suggest that the "triumphal entry": when Jesus came to Jerusalem and climbed the Temple Mount—was an idealized account of an attempted "coupe" on his part. That Jesus went to the Temple intent on ridding it of the ruling Hasmonean House of Ciaphus. The Romans had no qualms about supporting the ruling priest's wished and sanctioning an execution of the Galilean prophet: Galileans were generally known as backwards, over-zealous troublemakers in the first place, and besides, the kind of following that Jesus was amassing and his incessant talk of a "Kingdom of God" would have been enough to convince them that he needed to be silenced. Messing with the "social and religious order" in ancient times was very, very serious business.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...As I've repeated numerous times throughout this thread, I find it perfectly acceptable to teach creationism privately in homes, churches, Sunday schools, and other places of worship -- just keep it out of the science curriculum in publicly-funded schools.

Absolutely agree without any equivocation.

[photon]

One of the things that set Christianity apart in the first place.. it was exclusive. You believed in Jesus or you didn't get into heaven. That was pretty unique.

And the early Christian church was very preoccupied with correctness of beliefs rather than correctness of rituals, something else that set it apart, something else that was fairly unique.

That set up a situation where it was important for everyone to come to an agreed upon set of beliefs.. one had to "win". And given the huge variation of scripture, beliefs, and doctrine in the early church, plus the lack of almost any record of Jesus during Jesus' actual lifetime, how much of what we have was Jesus' actual beliefs and how much was just the doctrine that "won" through superior marketing and control?

So while I agree with the idea of staying true to the idea of a Jesus who professed self sacrifice and such, is that even what he taught?

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think that ID should be taught as a specific class or topic.

I do however think that teaching religon from an acedemic stand point is important - especially the big 5 (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Part of which would include various creation theories as they are important aspects.

Understanding religious points of view is important to understanding culture and politics. It also avoids ignorance that causes people to make sweeping generalizations about people who follow particular religons. Basically, I think it would help build tolerance.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I don't have to go to church to be a Christian. Not going to church doesn't diminish my faith. I still am able to converse with Christians as I should to reaffirm my faith.

I'm not saying you have to go to church to be a Christian - I'm saying the opposite, that you don't have to go to church to be a Christian because being a Christian (for most, not all) consists of the following creed:

"Jesus is the Saviour, but that doesn't pay the bills."

You may be much more pious than the common, non-churchgoing Christian. If so, good for you (despite my disbelief, I can respect that you have your reasons for belief). That doesn't invalidate my central point, which is that the majority of Christians are no more than believers from convenience and apathy.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

So while I agree with the idea of staying true to the idea of a Jesus who professed self sacrifice and such, is that even what he taught?

"Love the sinner", and "Do unto others" are two of his more prominent teachings.

[photon]

I meant those are the things we THINK he taught through the writings we have today, but there's hardly anything from Jesus' time. Despite the supposed uproar he caused among the Jewish leaders, writings from that time are mostly silent about him.

Don't get me wrong, do unto others is pretty central to the way I try to live my life, many of Jesus' teaching are excellent guides for moral living.

I'm just asking do we really know what Jesus did teach, because while some Christians in the early church believed in Do unto others, other Christians believed in 3 gods, or 30 gods, or Jesus wasn't human, or Jesus was only human, or any number of other things.. And these beliefs came from writings by people who claimed to have known Jesus, just as the writings that make up the canon do.

We do know that some portions of the existing canon were added as time went on perhaps to combat other writings and beliefs the majority (or the scribe) thought to be heretical. The story where the pharasies bringing the adulteress to Jesus and he tells them that whoever has no sin can cast the first stone for example was added long after John was written, for what purpose who knows. And that's a pretty key phrase and point of doctrine for Christians.

Just an example. Again I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater saying the Bible is worthless, just saying that we don't even know for sure what the historical Jesus (if he even existed, there's been discussion about that before here too) taught for sure, so it's hard for me personally to invest in a religion where the source of doctrine and such is in question. Keep in mind that I was raised to believe the Bible was the inerrant word of God and if something disagreed with the Bible, that thing was wrong, not the Bible.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

I meant those are the things we THINK he taught through the writings we have today, but there's hardly anything from Jesus' time...

Hey Photon.

I have every intention of getting into this with you at some point today, but I've got some things to do. Bear with me, and I will get back to you.

[troutman]

I'm not convinced there was a historical Jesus, or at least I think the question may be unanswerable.

I think more and more though, that it may not really be relevant if he lived or not. The Christian message/philosophy is still worth studying (along with many other myth systems). As long as the myths are not taken to be literal truths, I think there is great value in people examining the lessons - what Joseph Campbell calls "the experience of being alive".

People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.
-- Joseph Campbell, Myth and the Modern World