Uh, excuse me, but apologetic arguments supporting religious belief *are* allowed in the classroom. Skatje and I took "Philosophy of Religion" Spring 08 semester, and we spent the entire time talking about things like the Ontological and Teleological arguments for a god. That stuff isn't in a science classroom, but that's because we recognize they aren't matters of scientific inquiry.
Did they suggest any books on Intelligent Design per chance....written from the perspective of both sides? Because, it seems that the secular world refuses to allow discussion in science classes covering arguments for design, so are they covered in philosophy classes?
Most religion and philosophy of religion classes at the university level are horrifically biased toward secularism. They teach religion as so many myths rather than exploring the apologetic arguments for each faith. And, there is *so* little that can be covered in a semester. YES, I did take a couple religion courses in college, so I talk from experience.
Many of the religion departments are run by strong agnostics. We had quite the to do here at KU a few years ago, and I learned a lot about the professors in that department and their philosophical worldviews.
Secularism reigns supreme at the university level turning many students away from looking any further for religious truth. Students are enamored with their "intellectual" professors and talk down to those who reject their "enlightened" path of freedom from religious "dogma".
Most churches are doing a lousy job of arming our students with the knowledge that they need to counter the bogus claims they run across on campus.
Personally, I'd like to do away with "religion" classes at the universities entirely because they *suck*. Cover religious beliefs in history classes when studying various cultures.
And, btw, there are endless books on Christian apologetics that would never be allowed to see the light of day in a mainstream university religion class. I don't believe they should, but the view of "apologetics" you're getting in that philosophy of religion class is merely gleaning the surface...there is soooo much more to consider in regard to religious truth.
The sad situation is that after college religion and philosophy courses have poisoned the well, so to speak, many students never look back...they accept secularism and reject religious belief from that point on.
FtK said: "Personally, I'd like to do away with "religion" classes at the universities entirely because they *suck*. Cover religious beliefs in history classes when studying various cultures."
Collin: I don't think you understand what I mean by the class I took. It was "Philosophy of Religion," not "Survey of Religion." The class was not about different kinds of religions or a spectrum of religious beliefs and practices. It was solely on the *arguments* for and against the existence of God as defined by Western culture (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent).
The book we used in class *specifically* noted that in their opening introduction. It was written by two professors at the University of Maryland. One was a Catholic; the other I believe was an agnostic. They presented nearly every argument for the existence of God under the sun, from the arguments posed by Boethius and Aquinas, to the arguments of Anselm, Malcolm, and even a few ID names from today. You asked if they referenced any ID-specific literature, and I don't believe they did, but the book included several chapters on the Argument from Design, and biological design (ID and irreducible complexity) was mentioned in detail.
I seriously have no clue what you're talking about when you say these kinds of classes are naturally inclined towards secularism. They have nothing to do with secularism, politics, or science. They are philosophy classes, and it's precisely where this kind of material should be. Intelligent Design does not present any legitimate scientific claims, and in the end it is 100% impossible to use science to test whether or not something has in fact been designed. All one can do is present examples of irreducibly complex systems, but those are often refuted through scientific research before their authors even think of them. One thing I appreciated about the philosophy of religion class I took is that it brushed over biological design as a rather weak argument in favor of cosmological design. Arguments from cosmological design have much more weight than those found in biology because the whole teleological issue is refuted by research; where research cannot be conducted is where the teleological argument is safest. Instances of alleged biological design can be easily shown to be possible through natural processes, but issues like the origins of the universe are not nearly so simple. Advocates of ID within the school of biology ought to abandon their frivolous pursuit and take up stronger ground elsewhere.
Collin,
I was *specifically* refering to *religion* courses in the statement you quoted above....not philosophy of religion. There is a significant difference.
As far philosophy courses are concerned, I really don't have a problem with ID being included in relevant curriculum. I do maintain, however, that liberal bias does exist within academia.
As far as ID in the science classroom? When discussing the OOL, I believe ID should certainly be allowed a chair at the table. Anywhere that multiverse, primoridal soup, etc. might be posited as science...ID should be included.
"Intelligent Design does not present any legitimate scientific claims, and in the end it is 100% impossible to use science to test whether or not something has in fact been designed."
You must not be in Dawkins camp then. He believes that the "God theory" is, in fact, scientifically relevant. He believes that we will eventually be able to rule out the concept of a designer altogether. By his standards, ID is, without a doubt, a legitimate scientific theory.
"All one can do is present examples of irreducibly complex systems, but those are often refuted through scientific research before their authors even think of them."
I emphatically disagree with your contention, but have no intention of getting into this discussion for the umpteenth time.
BTW, Collin, I appreciate your comments and your tone. I know that both you and Skatje take your education very seriously, and it's quite obvious that you're both very intelligent individuals.
Enjoy those college years...
Ftk, you have been misinformed. Dawkins does not consider ID a scientific theory. Here is his, quite unequivocal, evaluation of ID in the Guardian:
So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.
If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect.
Hi Oleg....
Listen very carefully, hon...will you for a moment?
What I said above is absolutely correct. I said, "by his standards", and indeed, ID is a scientific theory by Dawkin's standards.
Does Dawkins *admit* that ID is science? Fucking no way...obviously. It is his mission in life to ensure that students never consider the inference of design from a scientific standpoint. Now, he does support any other faith based belief in regard to the OOL as long as it is a purely naturalistic faith based assumption and does not infer an ultimate designer.
Nonetheless, Dawkins yammers on about multiverse theory, "God theory", etc., etc.. By his standards, ID does belong in the science classrooms when considering the OOL.
I haven't seen anything by Dawkins to indicate he thinks ID can be scientifically investigated. Dawkins believes we have seen enough evidence of natural processes to make the inductive conclusion that "There probably is no god," and I sympathize with him on that statement.
But making inductive inferences is only part of science. Sure, the totality of the scientific evidence says that a god is not needed to explain anything in the universe, but that doesn't make the statement "There probably is no god" testable by any scientific means. The only thing capable of disproving that statement is the intelligent agent, and that assumes one exists. It is not inconsistent for Dawkins to conclude God probably does not exist while saying that ID is not science.
Ftk,
I can't claim that I am intimately familiar with Dawkins's writings, but what little I have seen suggests that he considers both "God theory" and the multiverse hypothesis in the realm of philosophy, rather than science. Neither is testable empirically (at least for now), so he uses aesthetic criteria such as simplicity to evaluate their merits. (See, for instance, The antropic principle: Cosmological version in The God Delusion.)
"Sure, the totality of the scientific evidence says that a god is not needed to explain anything in the universe, but that doesn't make the statement."
*blink*
Statements like this never cease to amaze me, perhaps because it's so readily obvious to the grand majority of human beings that nature screams of design. Dawkins and every atheist alive can't dismiss the fact that design is evident in nature... but their want for science to explain it all through naturalistic means demands that they write design off as an “illusion“.
It boggles the mind that there are those students who actually come away from their science classes believing that the "totality of the scientific evidence says that a god is not needed to explain anything in the universe".
Interesting statement to make when we have no idea how life even started...the mathematical probability that that random spark of life is responsible for everything we observe in nature today is something that few can fathom. It takes tremendous faith and credulity to insist that science can explain everything in the universe through naturalistic causes. How consciousness evolved, how codes and programs evolved from *nothing*, how speech evolved, how sexual reproduction evolved from it’s onset, how the immune system evolved from the onset, how our thoughts and mental abilities evolved...mind to brain, how vital organs evolved from one morphological organism to another, etc., etc., etc.. ... The "scientific evidence" we are provided with is based on speculation, inference, and *endless* just so stories that are later often refuted. In fact, the *empirical* evidence is vastly non existent for common descent.
Philosophical naturalists are gullible, and they take for granted and attribute all the information packed into every organism on earth as being *initially* caused by random, chance occurrences. They refuse to acknowledge that at the onset of evolution, information increasing and producing vast amounts of information without a first cause is simply ridiculous.
Of course, this doesn’t even touch on the fine tuning of the universe, but I hope to eventually write a post on the topic.
If, for whatever reason, you reject the idea that a “god” is needed to explain the obvious design of nature (or "illusion of design" per Dawkins), fine....but, to declare that science has ruled out the need for a designing force of some kind is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand and wishing that the obvious would evanesce.
FtK: Interesting statement to make when we have no idea how life even started...the mathematical probability that that random spark of life is responsible for everything we observe in nature today is something that few can fathom. It takes tremendous faith and credulity to insist that science can explain everything in the universe through naturalistic causes. How consciousness evolved, how codes and programs evolved from *nothing*, how speech evolved, how sexual reproduction evolved from it’s onset, how the immune system evolved from the onset, how our thoughts and mental abilities evolved...mind to brain, how vital organs evolved from one morphological organism to another, etc., etc., etc.. ... The "scientific evidence" we are provided with is based on speculation, inference, and *endless* just so stories that are later often refuted. In fact, the *empirical* evidence is vastly non existent for common descent.
Collin: It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion when time continues to work against the argument from design. With every additional piece of the universe that we discover, the argument from design is made weaker and weaker. It used to be a grand argument back when we thought the earth was the center of the universe and we couldn't even begin to understand the intricacies of life.
So far, design's track record is trailing far behind naturalism's:
Wrathful gods causing drought? Try the cycle of precipitation.
Thunder and lightning? Well, we haven't found Zeus yet, but we've put together a fairly precise model of meteorology.
Complex life forms? Chalk 'em up to evolution.
Our awesome brain? Only as awesome as any product of chemistry and natural selection.
The formation of Earth and all its elements? Turns out stars bake more than our skin, and gravity has this fascinating ability to squish it all together when it's ready to cool.
These are a handful of countless examples naturalism explains with ease. They've been *confirmed.* You could even refuse to do a sincere five-minute fact check through Google and see for yourself just how silly it is to say we don't know how the immune system, consciousness, sexual reproduction, or speech evolved, because it's beside the point: "Confirmation" is not even in the vocabulary of the design argument to begin with. There is literally nothing outside of human civilization we can point to and say with any amount of certainty that, "This was designed." Every single instance in which we've claimed something to be designed has either turned out to be a product of naturalistic processes, or its origin is unknown. Throughout history, the "unknowns" have been eaten up by naturalistic explanations at an exponential rate. We're to the point where biochemists estimate we're within ten years of cracking the ability to create life from scratch, demonstrating once and for all the argument from biological design has absolutely no reasonable doubt to stand upon. Our understan
Though you've provided a lot of empty rhetoric, you know very well that science has *not* come even close to providing *empirical* evidence supporting the notion that natural causes alone can "explain anything in the universe".
You're no idiot, obviously. So, you can ramble on with your pre-recorded rhetoric, but you know full well that minus the inference, speculation and just so stories, scientists honestly don't know jack shit in regard to how "consciousness evolved, how codes and programs evolved from *nothing*, how speech evolved, how sexual reproduction evolved from it’s onset, how the immune system evolved from the onset, how our thoughts and mental abilities evolved...mind to brain, how vital organs evolved from one morphological organism to another, etc., etc., etc.. ".
As time goes on, not only are we able to offer explanations for what we observe, as you alluded to above, but we also discover how much more intricate and complex our universe really is. The cell used to be compared to a mere blob of protoplasm...we certainly know better today. As science advances, it becomes readily apparent that natural causes alone cannot explain the awe inspiring complexity, fine tuning, and organization we observe in nature.
To quote a well known song: "Nothing comes from nothing...Nothing every could."
Ftk, when you throw everything and a kitchen sink that doesn't necessarily make it a good argument. Let's see if we can disentangle this mess.
Interesting statement to make when we have no idea how life even started...the mathematical probability that that random spark of life is responsible for everything we observe in nature today is something that few can fathom.
I don't think science claims to have solved this one. Evolutionary biology, in particular, deals with the origin of species, not the origin of life.
It takes tremendous faith and credulity to insist that science can explain everything in the universe through naturalistic causes.
Or maybe it means that science has a pretty good track record. Science explained planetary motion in purely naturalistic terms, freeing up angels to do other tasks. Diseases turned out to be the work of microorganisms and parasites, not the wrath of God. Again, science pointed out that God needn't do the tedious job of creating every species from scratch: species can and do arise through natural means (and even YECs agree with that). Science figured out that the Earth originated through a natural process and so did the Sun. We know what powers the Sun. All of these things (and many more) were previously explained in supernatural terms.
How consciousness evolved,
Consciousness is a philosophical category, like good and bad. Science may or may not be able to deal with it, but if it does it will not be exactly on philosophical terms.
how codes and programs evolved from *nothing*,
The origin of life has not yet been understood by science. That doesn't mean it will never be understood. Auguste Comte once said that we'll never learn what the planets and stars are made of; his pessimism was proven wrong.
how speech evolved, how sexual reproduction evolved from it
’s onset, how the immune system evolved from the onset, how our thoughts and mental abilities evolved...mind to brain, how vital organs evolved from one morphological organism to another, etc., etc., etc..
Look, unless science has some unresolved questions, it's dead. Scientists have to work on something, right? In physics, we have the puzzles of dark matter and dark energy. We aren't able to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics yet. Does it mean we will never find understand them? Should we declare all of those the hand of God and call it a day?
... The "scientific evidence" we are provided with is based on speculation, inference, and *endless* just so stories that are later often refuted. In fact, the *empirical* evidence is vastly non existent for common descent.
That's what Casey Where's the wrist? Luskin tells you. Doesn't make it true. Before scientific discoveries make it to the pre
As time goes on, not only are we able to offer explanations for what we observe, as you alluded to above, but we also discover how much more intricate and complex our universe really is. The cell used to be compared to a mere blob of protoplasm...we certainly know better today. As science advances, it becomes readily apparent that natural causes alone cannot explain the awe inspiring complexity, fine tuning, and organization we observe in nature.
I don't think so. We have learned that the Universe is governed by very simple laws. Quantum electrodynamics, the branch of physics that deals with protons, electrons and photons and thus underlies most of physics, chemistry, and biology, is a very simple theory. Its rules, equations and constants fit on the back of a small envelope. Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) is as simple as they come.
To quote a well known song: "Nothing comes from nothing...Nothing ever could."
Yeah, and DaveScot's First Law of Biology sez "Life comes from life." No way we descended from monkeys. LOL.
lol....Oleg, you and I could go round and round, back and forth for decades and we'd end up at square one again. Honestly, I just don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
I guess I’ll point to a few previous posts I’ve written on some of the issues you mention above because I tire of reconstructing the same conversations over and over and over...
physical laws
sexual reproduction
probability of life appearing spontaneously
I don't see any conversations in those links. The last one contains one comment from me and no further response. But I agree that such outcomes are typical. LOL
Well, that would be because Blipey the psychotic clown made it necessary for me to change my comments to haloscan. Because of the change, I lost previous blogger comments.
To this day that maniac stalks my blog almost daily...even resorting to sending an email trying to get my attention.
Creepy....very, very creepy individual.
I checked the old blogger comments which still show how many comments were made but not the comments themselves.
Physical laws...0
sexual reproduction....2
probability of life...1
Guess I made my point....no takers on further conversation....IOW, I won. LOL.
Just teasing, Oleg...
Teasing aside, ftk, here's a serious question. You demanded proof of macroevolution, natural origin of life, origin of speech etc. I acknowledged that science does not yet have answers in this regard and pointed out to other, rather unequivocal successes science made elsewhere.
Now, suppose a hundred years pass and science still can't provide answers to some of these questions. But that in itself does not prove that it was God of the Bible who had started life, created "kinds" and taught early humans to speak. Yet you seem to make that leap of logic. Care to expound?
lol...well, I'm not sure He "taught" early humans to speak....but, that's beside the point.
Oleg, science is never going to "prove" that the God of scripture exists. I have never expected science to answer my questions in regard to God. I go to religious and philosophical sources when considering what or who may be responsible for the design we observe in nature. I'm not trying to make a leap in logic from science to the biblical Creator. Science, religion and philosophy cross paths at certain points, and when combining all three, intellectual arguments are made that certainly support the belief that there is an ultimate Creator of the Cosmos. With that being established, one must consider other sources beyond science to find further answers. I believe it is possible to follow lines of evidence that point toward the God of scripture as being The Creator.
But, that my friend, is a whole different discussion. One you and I will probably never see eye to eye on.
I'm just started reading the God Delusion, too. Dawkins is a vacuous twit who is adept at identifying when others make a fallacious argument, but not when he does. Think about his opposition to regression in the God Delusion, and compare that to his faithful insistence in Expelled that if life on this planet were engineered, it was "most certainly" engineered by creatures from some other part of the universe that evolved in a process similar to that specified in Darwinian evolution.
Regarding apologetics, support is the operative word. Dawkins sets up proof as a standard, however, and those Christians who accept that as a standard are bound to become depressed after reading Dawkins’ pap.
Yet, Richard Dawkins cannot even prove that he exists, though he can produce supporting evidence.
Olegt, interesting speculation about what science may find a hundred years from now.
Of course, none of us are going to be around, are we?
Thanks for the answers, ftk. If I may, I'd like to ask one or two more questions to see where you stand.
What is your position on common descent? Do humans share an ancestor with apes? With monkeys? With mice?
Crickets?
Oh, Oleg....
I'm just not in the mood to go there right now. I'm throwing back a few beers at the moment trying *not* to think.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure you know where I stand on common descent, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.
Why do you bother to debate these materialists, Ftk? Their religions are philosophical materialism and Darwinism, and no conceivable evidence would be likely to cause them to modify these religious convictions.
One longtime materialist and atheist who did modify his views quite a bit under the impact of the evidence of design was Fred Hoyle, who became one of the fathers of intelligent design theory. But Hoyle was called The Maverick for good reason. He had none of the sheep-like herd mentality that is common among scientists.
"Why do you bother to debate these materialists, Ftk?"
Good question, Jim. I simply have no clue why I feel compelled to figure them out.
No, ftk, I do not remember where you stand on common decent. But if you wish to avoid the subject, I suppose there's nothing I can do.
Sigh...I'm not avoiding anything, Oleg. I'm simply not in the mood. Another time, maybe.
Commenting by HaloScan
