Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Seshat]

At my university, the Science department had a science historian in it. He happened to be a friend I'd met through the local Star Trek club, so I spent some time with him.

My own degree course was in computer science, and we had a computing-humanities sort of professor in our department. He taught a history of science class to the first years, and various ethics, human interface, organisation theory and information theory courses in later years in the degree.

I think a history-and-philosophy-of-science section has a place in the science curriculum, and could be taught by the science teachers. It would just need to be clear when the humanities-of-science was being taught, and when actual science-science was being taught.

[Slytovhand]

Science courses are taught using the scientific method. Science class is sacrosanct because the scientific method is sacrosanct.

Almost getting a little OT, but.....

I know the benefits of the scientific method and all, and yeah - it's good. But.. what about the mystical experience?? The scientific method has a bit to answer for with the "well - if we can't measure it, then it doesn't count' (yeah - ok... it's a way to look at it). Someone mentioned reflexology earlier in the thread. Ok - it doesn't pass as a science - but it still has positive effects. Acupuncture isn't a science, yet it works.

Maybe it's a badly distorted view of the place of the method, but there are definite attitudes of 'well - if it hasn't been proven scientifically, then it's crap!"


Oh - Boozy - as for the other point as for where it could be taught, I was specifically referring to schools, not universities. When I did ID in uni, it was part of Arts, and Melbourne Uni has a History and Philosophy of Science dept (HPS). If you've got the net, it's sort of worth a quick squiz to see the sort of stuff they've got there!!

Slyt

[Boozy]

I know the benefits of the scientific method and all, and yeah - it's good. But.. what about the mystical experience?? The scientific method has a bit to answer for with the "well - if we can't measure it, then it doesn't count'

I have read books on cosmology by several very reputable scientists, and not one of them believes that experiences outside of the scientific method "don't count"....they just fall outside the realm of science.

[IDrinkaRum]

Okay, not sure if anyone has mentioned this tidbit in the thread but here is what I remember from a few years ago:

Scientists were able to "recreate" the Big Bang, but they were unable to get even an amoeba to show up after all was said and done.

Science has always said: Big Bang, out of that osmosis came planets, and simple single celled organisms that morphed into larger more complex organisms, etc., etc.

Something else must have happened to get everything kick started (Big Bang or whatever). We won't find out until we die if there is a heaven/hell/purgatory/whatever.

Intelligent Design? Evolution? Doesn't matter, does it really?

[Boozy]

Scientists were able to "recreate" the Big Bang...

That is completely incorrect.

Such an event has yet to be recreated. The Large Hadron Collider experiment at CERN hopes to come close to creating the conditions present at the time of the Big Bang, but it has not been tested yet.

I'm also a little confused as to how scientists could "recreate" the first few billion years of the planet's evolution without actually waiting several billion years.

[IDrinkaRum]

As i said it was a few years ago that I read the article. Basically, what I remember of it, they were able to do the all the things to get the explosion, but it was dubbed a failure because nothing else happened.

I too found it odd that they gave up so quickly, but I was just putting that out there. There are probably religious die-hards that use that as an argument against evolution.

[AFPheonix]

I know the benefits of the scientific method and all, and yeah - it's good. But.. what about the mystical experience?? The scientific method has a bit to answer for with the "well - if we can't measure it, then it doesn't count' (yeah - ok... it's a way to look at it). Someone mentioned reflexology earlier in the thread. Ok - it doesn't pass as a science - but it still has positive effects. Acupuncture isn't a science, yet it works.

The main thing that doctors have with holistic therapies is that in the past no one's bothered to really go beyond anecdotal evidence on whether these therapies work and subjected them to rigorous tests. I imagine there's probably some on the go now if they haven't already been completed. All reasonable scientists say in regards to those therapies that have been around but never had the benefits measured is that no one can really claim a measurable benefit until those benefits are actually measured. I'm sure a portion of them use those methods themselves or on pets and whatnot.
We also have a lot to learn yet about our physiology. Even now there's cells we've found and we really don't have a clue what they even do.

Also, I will reiterate what I always say about mysticism or religion and science: Science can only measure that which is in the natural world. Religion explains that which resides in the supernatural. Together they give us a more rounded understanding of our world, or existence and experience. To try to make science explain the supernatural or have religion explain the natural will never give us good results.

[IDrinkaRum]

AFPhoenix - Very well said. That is actually what I believe.

For those who don't know. I had a basic upbringing of Roman Catholicism. (My mother had had religion shoved down her throat while growing up and she vowed her children wouldn't have the same upbringing - which is true. We were baptized, had our communions & confirmed, but otherwise, Church wasn't the end all and be all of our existence).

Anyway, I do believe in God and I do believe that He/She/It had a hand in creating the universe and earth and the people and other universes. In Genesis, it reads, "And God looked on this world and saw that it was good." This denotes that. (Thank you Conjunction Junction). If this world is good, then that world isn't. Maybe it was just referring to Mars or Venus or Planet Tikachumba in Universe XYZ which is a kabillion million trillion zillion miles away from us and we will never know.

Creationism and evolution may or may not be able to live side by side. One or both might end up being wrong. (We could have all been put on the earth by space aliens from other planets and every once in a while, new people are added or whatever - who knows?) I just wish the people (and I'm not talking about the people on the board, but people in general) on each side of the debate could be open minded about what the other is saying.

Just MHO.

[Seshat]

I know the benefits of the scientific method and all, and yeah - it's good. But.. what about the mystical experience?? The scientific method has a bit to answer for with the "well - if we can't measure it, then it doesn't count' (yeah - ok... it's a way to look at it). Someone mentioned reflexology earlier in the thread. Ok - it doesn't pass as a science - but it still has positive effects. Acupuncture isn't a science, yet it works.

Maybe it's a badly distorted view of the place of the method, but there are definite attitudes of 'well - if it hasn't been proven scientifically, then it's crap!"

That is a distorted view of the place of science, yes. And people who have that opinion have a misunderstanding of the place of science as well. In the first place, science never proves - it only disproves.

Reflexology, kinesiology, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like are incredibly difficult to do double-blind tests with. And the medical field almost requires a double-blind test - it's the best way humanity has yet come up with to eliminate the placebo effect.

Once someone comes up with a way to empirically test those practices, while eliminating the placebo effect, they will be testable by the scientific method. Until then, the best scientists can do is to shrug and say 'anecdotal evidence shows that they work for some people'.

Scientists were able to "recreate" the Big Bang, but they were unable to get even an amoeba to show up after all was said and done.

So scientists have been able to create a parallel universe? With as much energy as this universe, as many billions of stars, tens of billions of planets, comets, meteors....

Sorry, but the amoeba is a complicated little device, and I wouldn't expect it to show up within a decade of a tiny (on a cosmic scale) collision in a single collider.

My own expectation is that random chance would take many billions of star-planet-moon combinations to create the conditions which might, if you're lucky, create a protein molecule. Which, if you're even luckier, might turn into a virus or bacterium. Which, if you're luckier still, might develop into a cell.

Science has always said: Big Bang, out of that osmosis came planets, and simple single celled organisms that morphed into larger more complex organisms, etc., etc.

The Big Bang theory was developed last century. Evolution theory the century before. Both theories were tested rigorously against all the disproofs their detractors could find, and only accepted as tentatively true once their detractors could not disprove them. I wouldn't call that 'always'.

Evolution is still only one fossil-find from being discredited. A single bone of the wrong type in the wrong geological stratum can discredit Evolution. Once that bone has been itself tested and disproof rigorously attempted - and the disproofs failed - Evolution would be discredited and scientists would be working to find a hypothesis that matched all the evidence.

The Big Bang theory is still tentative: it does not explain all the observed phenomena. Theoretical physicists and cosmologists are attempting to come up with hypotheses that do explain the full range of cosmic phenomena.
For a really short overview of the Big Bang theory, including a brief precis on problems with it, check out NASA on Big Bang.

Creationism and evolution may or may not be able to live side by side. One or both might end up being wrong. (We could have all been put on the earth by space aliens from other planets and every once in a while, new people are added or whatever - who knows?) I just wish the people (and I'm not talking about the people on the board, but people in general) on each side of the debate could be open minded about what the other is saying.

Science responds to what is seen around us. Science talks about 'how'. Religion also responds to what we see around us, but it additionally responds to our sense of the mystical. Religion talks about 'why'.

Science says 'the world was spun out of nothingness'. Religion says 'and God was the spinner'.

Science says 'mankind gradually developed out of the same evolutionary branch as the other Great Apes'. Religion says 'God got better at developing the species He wanted, as He went along'.

Science says 'it's an amazing coincidence that we're here at all'. Religion says 'it looks like a coincidence, but God knew what He was looking for, and He guided the coincidence'.

They're not incompatible. It's just that Science isn't asking the same questions as Religion is.



I'm essentially a scientist. Despite that, I know that there are phenomena in this world that Science can never explain - or at least, not in my lifetime.
I am happy to stand on the uncertain ground of 'I don't know'.
I don't know whether the universe is billions of years old, or whether God created it a second ago right down to the incredible detail of putting memories in my head. And I'm fine with that. If God wanted to make a world which looked like it had been in existence for billions of years, that's His prerogative.

And if He chose to make humans inquisitive types and put us on such a world, then He obviously is happy with us developing paleontology and geology and cosmology and the like. If He didn't want that, He could have easily given us a world which looked much younger.

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - At least you can acknowledge not only your scientific side, but your religious side. I think that's a step in the right direction.

What i don't like are the people who say only science is correct or only religion is correct.

You're right: God made us thinking beings who like to ask questions and research and stuff. And if he didn't like it, he would have done something by now to discourage it somehow.

[Seshat]

Seshat - At least you can acknowledge not only your scientific side, but your religious side. I think that's a step in the right direction.

A step?

I'm deeply spiritual. I just don't wave it around like a flag. My spiritual life permeates my whole life - everything I do, say and think. It just does so quietly.

Part of my spiritual belief, however, is that I have a duty to respect other peoples' spiritualities. I presume that everyone is either happy with their spiritual/religious beliefs, or is capable of going to their local library/surfing the net and doing a study in comparative religion.

I don't proselytise, and in fact, such behaviour offends my beliefs. It's an effort not to rant at door-to-door 'missionaries' or street preachers.

However, I will gladly explain my beliefs and my faith to those who ask.

What i don't like are the people who say only science is correct or only religion is correct.

Nor do I. Science is never correct - it is, at best, an approximation of the truth. However, it's the closest approximation that humanity has reached so far.

Religion ... well, religion answers a different need in the human being than the search for objective truth. It answers a need for a kind of subjective Truth that I don't really have the words to describe.

Religion isn't about 'how does it rain?', but about 'what is the meaning of life?' Religion (and also spirituality and philosophy) asks larger questions than science does.

You're right: God made us thinking beings who like to ask questions and research and stuff. And if he didn't like it, he would have done something by now to discourage it somehow.

Exactly.

[Slytovhand]

Ok... I gotta bite

I have read books on cosmology by several very reputable scientists, and not one of them believes that experiences outside of the scientific method "don't count"....they just fall outside the realm of science.

Why? I am a believer that pretty much everything in the physical universe can be looked upon at a 'scientific' angle that is, there are processes that can be looked at, measured, prodded and poked... but sometimes those things get left behind. (things more ephemeral such as ethics would be a bit of an issue ) There has been experimentation in acupuncture, but not the fantastic results that help to pinpoint it down. What I do find is how easy it can be to belittle much anecdotal evidence in the 'face' of science (yet... such evidence encourages scientists to go bush to look for 'drugs'. Oh - and they tend to forget synergy between the chemicals in the plants to find that one 'active ingredient').

So...IF acupuncture works, and IF there is actually a force called Qi, then it would help us getting a little bit towards some of the other big questions that religion asks, but science wants to avoid. Yes - they are big IF's.. but unless someone focusses on them, we'll never get there. Electricity was always around - it didn't suddenly get created when someone discovered it.

I just sometimes think that science decides what's 'disprovable' after a only few experiments and then let it go.

I spose I just get annoyed that things get thrown to either the 'debunked' or the 'that's religion' way of things way too soon. As someone mentioned, rain used to be the province of the Gods, now it isn't. Who's to say what else is or isn't? If the creator of the universe wasn't actually a 'god' but in fact an alien scientist performing an experiment in a petri dish, shouldn't our scientists, eventually, be able to find evidence of that?? If they don't look, they'll never find.

Despite that, I know that there are phenomena in this world that Science can never explain - or at least, not in my lifetime.

(my emphasis) which is exactly my point...

I think it was the mathematicians or theoretical physicists able to 'recreate' the Big Bang - not an actual redoing of it again (I'd've thought we may have noticed if they had ) Although... given the infinite universes idea...perhaps not.......

What i don't like are the people who say only science is correct or only religion is correct.

Maybe it's both? Maybe it's neither?? Maybe we're only a thought experiment in someone's mind???

You're right: God made us thinking beings who like to ask questions and research and stuff. And if he didn't like it, he would have done something by now to discourage it somehow.

Wasn't that the Dark Ages? Or the fundamentalists who decided to burn all the books? Or the Pope who wanted Galileo to recant?? (just joking )

But... it does predetermine the quality of that god. What is the nature of God/s ??

Couldn't God (or whatever) and the way god's things are manifested be considered a truth to be investigated? (or do I just have a weird way of seeing the way things happen???? ) Getting back to the OP, is there evidence to suggest a lack of intelligence in the design? Isn't that a question scientists could work on? Or mathematicians?

(arrghhh,... probalby shouldn't post when I've got a head cold... sorry if I'm sounding...fratchy )

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

There are many natural processes such as rain that were explained through mysticism. That doesn't mean that mystical things can or even should be explained by science.
All it means is that something that was miscatagorized as spiritual was able to be recatagorized as natural once the proper tools and knowledge were available to examine and test it.

I think what you're objecting to is not science, but perhaps scientists who haven't yet devised experiments to test the things you want them to. Yes, some scientists may then say that something is not provable, but that doesn't make them right. All science can say about something like that is "I don't know, but we'll find out".

The problem with using a non-supernatural being as a Designer in ID hypothesis is that they are then subject to the very evolutionary processes we experience. How can one guide something that he himself is affected by? No, ID can only work if it presupposes a supernatural being, and then that makes it untestable via the Scientific Method and therefore unscientific.

[Slytovhand]

I think what you're objecting to is not science, but perhaps scientists who haven't yet devised experiments to test the things you want them to. Yes, some scientists may then say that something is not provable, but that doesn't make them right.

Points to Pheonix (oh - that's the noun, not the verb...)


Ummm - curious... 'should' (always a good word at the best of times) our science be limited to our own 'actual' world only? What about possible worlds, or worlds which, in all reality, we will never be able to find out about with any certainty? There is a hypothesis (from Roger Penrose and S Hawkings I think...) that suggests we (our universe) is the product of a previous Black Hole. There is also a hypothesis that suggests that all Black Holes create new Baby Universes. If this is true, then there should only be speculation about the nature of those universes - both before and after ours. If this is the case, is there any point trying to look at them, in the same vein as ascertaining a designer of them. After all, while there might be 'evidence' to suggest things about them, we really can't go and find out....

[Boozy]

Ummm - curious... 'should' (always a good word at the best of times) our science be limited to our own 'actual' world only? What about possible worlds, or worlds which, in all reality, we will never be able to find out about with any certainty?

The other worlds theory is intriguing, and mathematics could someday even prove that they exist. But how exactly are scientists supposed to make testable predictions about worlds that do not interact with our reality in any way?

The question is not "should" science be limited to our reality. The question is, how can it not?

If you or others want to explore the possible nature of other universes with your minds, great. I'll bet a lot of physicists fantasize about that kind of thing too. But don't call it science.