It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AlienView
True statement - The debate has degenerated into a classic Atheist vs. Theist scenario. Theists demand a creator and will
push their arguments and stretch their logic to support their faith - BUT the worse case of religiosity as usual comes from
the atheists who will step away from natural order, design and intelligence to prove their atheist religion [yes it is a religion, requiring an absolute faith in nothing as the prime cause of everything!!!] is correct - better chaos then Intelligent Design as ID does allow the possibility of an intelligence beyond their obviously limited intelligence would allow - Any theory that even allows the possibility of a creator is anathema to them - The universe came from nothing, has no intrinsic order, no goals, no destiny - How do they sleep at night? - In such a chaotic void how can you really be sure the Sun will rise tomorrow ?
.....Why not admit your faith is faith? I don't get the need to prove it to others. I never claimed atheism is absolute. I claim that science has high standards of proof, and judging something based on appearance alone is not conducive to this.
But the thing I like about Intelligent Design is the thing you don't like about it - It really is not a science, and some might argue that Evolution is not a science either. Both ID and Darwinism do have one thing in common though - They analyze phenomena and attempt to give meaning to the phenomena - Isn't science also based on meaning? - But you say once it is in the realm of science it is proven and before that it is faith - maybe no more than someone's imagination - Like Einstein's imagination on Relativity and the nature of the universe - Took many yesrs to be proven true.
originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs
replying to: AlienView
Regardless, relativity posits that both heliocentrism and geocentrism are both equally true, depending on perspective.
THE seeds of the clash between Galileo and the Catholic Church were sown centuries before Copernicus and Galileo were born. The earth-centered, or geocentric, view of the universe was adopted by the ancient Greeks and made famous by the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) and the astronomer-astrologer Ptolemy (second century C.E.).*
* = In the third century B.C.E., a Greek named Aristarchus of Samos put forth the hypothesis that the sun is at the center of the cosmos, but his ideas were dismissed in favor of Aristotle’s.
Aristotle’s concept of the universe was influenced by the thinking of Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (sixth century B.C.E.). Adopting Pythagoras’ view that the circle and sphere were perfect shapes, Aristotle believed that the heavens were a series of spheres within spheres, like layers of an onion. Each layer was made of crystal, with the earth at the center. Stars moved in circles, deriving their motion from the outermost sphere, the seat of divine power. Aristotle also held that the sun and other celestial objects were perfect, free of any marks or blemishes and not subject to change.
Aristotle’s great scheme was a child of philosophy, not science. A moving earth, he felt, would violate common sense. He also rejected the idea of a void, or space, believing that a moving earth would be subject to friction and would grind to a halt without the application of constant force. Because Aristotle’s concept seemed logical within the framework of existing knowledge, it endured in its basic form for almost 2,000 years. Even as late as the 16th century, French philosopher Jean Bodin expressed that popular view, stating: “No one in his senses, or imbued with the slightest knowledge of physics, will ever think that the earth, heavy and unwieldy . . . , staggers . . . around its own center and that of the sun; for at the slightest jar of the earth, we would see cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down.”
Aristotle Adopted by the Church
A further step leading to the confrontation between Galileo and the church occurred in the 13th century and involved Catholic authority Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Aquinas had a profound respect for Aristotle, whom he referred to as The Philosopher. Aquinas struggled for five years to fuse Aristotle’s philosophy with church teaching. By the time of Galileo, says Wade Rowland in his book Galileo’s Mistake, “the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome.” Keep in mind, too, that in those days there was no scientific community as such. Education was largely in the hands of the church. The authority on religion and science was often one and the same.
The stage was now set for the confrontation between the church and Galileo. Even before his involvement with astronomy, Galileo had written a treatise on motion. It challenged many assumptions made by the revered Aristotle. However, it was Galileo’s steadfast promotion of the heliocentric concept and his assertion that it harmonizes with Scripture that led to his trial by the Inquisition in 1633.
In his defense, Galileo affirmed his strong faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. He also argued that the Scriptures were written for ordinary people and that Biblical references to the apparent movement of the sun were not to be interpreted literally. His arguments were futile. Because Galileo rejected an interpretation of Scripture based on Greek philosophy, he stood condemned! Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church officially admit to error in its judgment of Galileo.
Lessons to Be Learned
What can we learn from these events? For one thing, Galileo had no quarrel with the Bible. Instead, he questioned the teachings of the church. One religion writer observed: “The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough.” By allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology, the church bowed to tradition rather than follow the teachings of the Bible.
All of this calls to mind the Biblical warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”—Colossians 2:8.
Even today, many in Christendom continue to embrace theories and philosophies that contradict the Bible. One example is Darwin’s theory of evolution, which they have accepted in place of the Genesis account of creation. In making this substitution, the churches have, in effect, made Darwin a modern-day Aristotle and evolution an article of faith.
True Science Harmonizes With the Bible
The foregoing should in no way discourage an interest in science. To be sure, the Bible itself invites us to learn from God’s handiwork and to discern God’s amazing qualities in what we see. (Isaiah 40:26; Romans 1:20) Of course, the Bible does not claim to teach science. Rather, it reveals God’s standards, aspects of his personality that creation alone cannot teach, and his purpose for humans. (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Timothy 3:16) Yet, when the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.
originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: whereislogic
You do have a point, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every single test, so all we have left is evolution which has passed every single scientific test.
Define scientific and we can tell you precisely why human beliefs are antithetical to science.
"What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
originally posted by: AlienView Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion...
So is Intelligent Design a science? NO - it is a methodological and philosophical way of observation. - A way to observe science.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: MarsIsRed
Darwinism was a term with meaning once, ...However it is up there with "evolutionist" for a term that Creationists throw around. ...
...Darwinism is a non entity, as is evolutionist. As I keep telling some of these posters...you can't cherry pick the bits you believe. Thus if there are evolutionists, there are also gravitationalists, Thermodynamicists, kineticists, ...
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
2. Evolutionist One who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics.
Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
2. (n) evolutionist A believer in the biological or cosmological doctrine of evolution.
3. evolutionist Of or pertaining to the doctrine of evolution; based upon or believing in the doctrine of evolution.
1859, "one who accepts as true the biological theory of evolution," from evolution + -ist. Related: Evolutionism.
...you can't cherry pick the bits you believe
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ... one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
originally posted by: AlienView
And why not admit that science too is also based upon faith
faith that scientific theories can be proven and that the proven theoreis will stand the test of time - they don't always stand the test of time - After Einstein and Relativity the universe does not appear quite the same - And Quantum Mechanics often contradicts Relativity and yet both theories have been 'proven' true.
But I am a Man of faith, not in religion, not in today's science, but in the future, and the future requires most of all the imagination - the imagination precedes all discovery - And if I imagine a future that will really come to pass I can not accept the nonsensical claims of religion or 'the atheist like' claims of those who want to take a 'holier than thou' view of a science that the future may show is fraught with misconceptions and faulty observation.
Remember the science of thousands of years past?
You might consider much of it, like you consider religion, nonsense today - I can imagine a science thousands of
years into the future that would look at many of the scientific theories of today as being Man's primitive attempt at
understanding - the science of today may one day be considered quite primitive.
But the thing I like about Intelligent Design is the thing you don't like about it - It really is not a science,
and some might argue that Evolution is not a science either.
So I'll say it again, I'm not in the 'there must be a creator because of intelligent design' camp - I'm in the 'there must be Intelligent Design in order for there to be science' camp - you can not discover, and create useful theories about the universe unless that universe possesses an inherent order and design to it.
Religion does not prove Intelligent Design - Science proves Intelligent Design !
And if you want to go on theorizing about a science that is observing a universe that is inherently chaotic with no patterns of design to it
- go right ahead - I'm still amazed about the magical universe of the atheist - the magic of a chaotic void yielding order !
But ID from my non-religious view is different - Intelligent patterns of design can be, and are shown throughout all that exists.
"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"