I stumbled upon Intelligent Design.

[Michael Chris]

Deks said:
Btw, Johnny Rico ... get some of your facts correct please.
Hitler was not an atheist.
He was a catholic and so were the Nazis.

Hitler was not a Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. He was raised Catholic, but he rejected it. Although he did use Catholic terminology, he spoke publicly positively of protestant Christianity more than Catholicism. Although there is evidence that he despised Christianity. The branch of Christianity that he may have belonged to, would be positive Christianity which is a twisted interpretation of Jesus' life to make Him out to be a hater of Jews and consistent with Nazism...

Yes, I believe in creationism. Most likely young earth, actually. I just think that God made us a marvelously wonderful universe, and humanity in our infinite ignorance tries to come up with explanations that are quite elegant but leave out the most important factor.

 

[David cgc]

TerriO said:
What about the theory that the Big Bang was the equivalent of "Creation," but everything from that point onward has played out on its own in accordance with scientific theory without outside interference? I'm not sure if there's a specific name for that theory, but I have spoken to people who share the belief.

That sounds like Deism to me.

 

[1001001]

From a scientific point of view, ID is just Creationism dressed up in a new suit.

From a political point of view, it is a wedge strategy to introduce religion into the classroom. ID proponents have said it themselves.

It's like a group of people insisting that, because there are two "theories" about the shape of the Earth, the "Flat Earth" theory should be given equal time in science class. And if we don't, we're depriving our students of one side of the debate.

ID is full of strawman arguments and very, very poor science.

As a philosophy/theology, that's a different matter...

 

[TerriO]

David cgc said:

TerriO said:
What about the theory that the Big Bang was the equivalent of "Creation," but everything from that point onward has played out on its own in accordance with scientific theory without outside interference? I'm not sure if there's a specific name for that theory, but I have spoken to people who share the belief.

That sounds like Deism to me.

That's not quite what I was thinking, but it's the closest I've seen. Thank you.

 

[Geoff]

Johnny Rico said:
Can we agree that everything has a creator...beit a celestial body, a laptop computer, a automobile, a TV, a motorcycle?

Uh, no...

Why does a celestial body need a creator? For cryin' out loud, all it needs is a cloud of gas and gravity.

 

[Unicron]

Indeed. Everything was no doubt created, but that does not mean it has a specific creator. Darwin pointed this out in his criticism of the First Mover and similar teleological arguments.

 

[Brent]

Nor does it mean it doesn't

If you flat out don't believe there is a higher being behind everything, you are dismissing a possibility just because you don't like it or believe it, but what if it is true..... How do you know for certain it is not true... For anyone who asks prove to them a deity exists, I ask the opposite, prove he doesn't....

 

[Unicron]

Our knowledge isn't based on believing something just because we can't disprove it 100%. I believe in the possibility of ghosts, based on the evidence available to me, but I'm not yet convinced that their existence is a fact. The evidence isn't sufficient to prove that. Until it is, or until we can prove that what we think of as ghosts are actually something else, I'll keep an open mind.

I do agree with you, though. Denying the possibility flat-out, as unlikely as it may seem, is wrong because we can't know for certain. But there are very few people who actually go that far.

 

[Brent]

Oh I know quite a few who go that far, they are certain there isn't one.

Some believe in science, some believe in faith I suppose. Got to love free will though, the ability to decide which one we want to believe.

 

[Geoff]

Brent said:
Nor does it mean it doesn't

If you flat out don't believe there is a higher being behind everything, you are dismissing a possibility just because you don't like it or believe it, but what if it is true..... How do you know for certain it is not true... For anyone who asks prove to them a deity exists, I ask the opposite, prove he doesn't....

Don't be ridiculous. Any student taking Elementary Logic 101 knows that you can't prove a negative. Why don't you prove that the Universe wasn't sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure?

In science, you never postulate the existence of something unless the evidence specifically leads you to do so. "Because the Bible says so" is not a scientifically valid reason. In fact, there is never a scientifically valid reason to postulate intervention from a divine being unless you just throw up your hands and say, "We don't know how this happened, so I guess God did it with magic."

Ergo, there is nothing whatsoever scientific about "Intelligent Design." Believe it if you want, but don't try and pass it off as science when it's a rejection of the very definition of science.

 

[Brent]

i never said there was anything scientific about ID

 

[TerriO]

*mod hat*

Okay, folks, let's take a deep breath here.

Geoff, dial it back, please.

We can have an intelligent discussion of the subject without resorting to pithy insults.

*takes off mod hat*

What I've noticed about many who point toward the Bible to explain ID is that they tend to ignore the actual history of the Bible. I mean, if we want to get into a discussion of Biblical archaeology, I'll be happy to see it.

Come to think of it, the Christians are basing their ID theory on the Old Testament, and isn't the Book of Genesis part of the Torah? Where is Judaism in this whole mishegas?

 

[Arrqh]

TerriO said:
Come to think of it, the Christians are basing their ID theory on the Old Testament, and isn't the Book of Genesis part of the Torah? Where is Judaism in this whole mishegas?

Depends on if you're talking about Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc...

But as I understand it, the most conservative elements of the Orthodox don't accept evolution, but they don't inherently accept a strict literal interpretation of the Torah either.

Generally, Conservative and Reformed Jews (Reformed being the largest denomination in America) are not interested in interpreting the Torah is a literal fashion either. Some quotes:

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally.

-GENESIS, SCIENCE, AND "SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM" published in Conservative Judaism

Intelligent design proponents are increasingly, and with success, seeking to use public schools to advance this concept, suggesting that "intelligent design" holds scientific merit equal to the theory of evolution. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community, which supports theories that are testable by experiment or observation, oppose treating intelligent design, which is neither, as scientific theory.

-THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, published by the Union for Reformed Judiasm

And here's a good one...

As I said, our beliefs are not science. They are not provable. But I believe that God was involved because even if we can explain scientifically how all this might have happened through the evolutionary process, it is still a miraculous world to me, and so I believe that whatever we discover scientifically to be "the way it happened" is how God made it happen.

- AND GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD CREATION, EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN by Rabbi Steven Morgen

And of course, there is as always a Wiki article on the subject! But like with all large groups with subdivisions and denominations, you won't find a clear consensus within the entire Jewish community. But I feel safe saying that the mainstream idea is not to literally interpret and to understand the difference between belief and science.

 

[Deks]

Naib Michael Usul said:

Deks said:
Btw, Johnny Rico ... get some of your facts correct please.
Hitler was not an atheist.
He was a catholic and so were the Nazis.

Hitler was not a Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. He was raised Catholic, but he rejected it. Although he did use Catholic terminology, he spoke publicly positively of protestant Christianity more than Catholicism. Although there is evidence that he despised Christianity. The branch of Christianity that he may have belonged to, would be positive Christianity which is a twisted interpretation of Jesus' life to make Him out to be a hater of Jews and consistent with Nazism...

Which in itself means Hitler was not an atheist to begin with if he used religion in ANY form (and he did) as a reason to further his goals.
There are numerous sources to this day that confirm Hitler was in fact of religious beliefs and not an atheist as many Christians like to claim.

Catholics are to my understanding Christians.
They follow the same basic teachings which makes them essentially the same.
Oh I understand there are Christians who don't consider themselves Catholics and that there are branches ... still, to my knowledge they follow the same basic teachings and rules, so in that aspect they are the same.
Plus Catholics are and always have been associated with Christians all the time.

As for Intelligent Design ... this quote sums it up nicely:

As I said, our beliefs are not science. They are not provable. But I believe that God was involved because even if we can explain scientifically how all this might have happened through the evolutionary process, it is still a miraculous world to me, and so I believe that whatever we discover scientifically to be "the way it happened" is how God made it happen.

So the person in question claims how their beliefs are NOT science, nor they are provable.
The person also goes further by saying 'it is still a 'miraculous world to me, and so I believe that whatever we discover scientifically to be "the way it happened" is how God made it happen'.
Now THAT is a personal opinion and again is not a universal statement.
I respect that persons beliefs and the right to make such a claim, but it's really questionable when people take such claims out of context and apply them as an absolute leaving no possibility for an alternative solution.

 

[Freakness]

TerriO said:

Come to think of it, the Christians are basing their ID theory on the Old Testament, and isn't the Book of Genesis part of the Torah? Where is Judaism in this whole mishegas?

Judaism doesn't tend to promote "Intelligent Design" as it's commonly described by (mostly) evangelical Christians. but then, strict biblical literalism hasn't been mainstream in Judaism for like 900 years.

Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew with PhDs in nuclear physics and earth sciences has written some amazing books on how Torah and science actually totally compliment each other and don't really conflict at all. definitely worth reading.

but ultimately Judaism is interested in how to be a good person and live a good life, and so discussions of this sort are largely academic and pretty much irrelevant. but there haven't been many huge rifts because Jewish scholars have a huge amount of latitude on how scripture has been interpreted over the millennia.

EDIT: actually, here is a really good, short article by Schroeder explaining the position of Judaism on this very subject.

 

[David cgc]

Deks said:
Which in itself means Hitler was not an atheist to begin with if he used religion in ANY form (and he did) as a reason to further his goals.

Unless, of course, it wasn't a reason, but a method. If he didn't believe himself, but simply used religion as another tool to manipulate the people, he could hardly be described as a religious individual.

 

[Deks]

Unless, of course, it wasn't a reason, but a method. If he didn't believe himself, but simply used religion as another tool to manipulate the people, he could hardly be described as a religious individual.

Possible.
However in numerous public speeches, Hitler said he `believed` (yes believed) how he is `doing the work of god`, and used religious talks all too often that people who were religious used as well.
If that is true, and according to numerous sources it is, then Hitler was in fact religious and not an atheist, because atheism is a lack of belief.
Plus when Hitler was in power he would have no need for manipulating the people because he already had them playing to his tune.

Also ... Johnny Rico if I am not mistaken, communism (which you shouldn't actually associate with atheism) was considered to be a religion.

Here's something for you to consider:
Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for.

 

[Geoff]

TerriO said:
Geoff, dial it back, please.

We can have an intelligent discussion of the subject without resorting to pithy insults.

Erm, okay... but I think if you go back and read the actual verbage of my comments and don't get distracted by the underlying emotionalism, it's pretty clear that I haven't insulted anyone. There's a pretty big difference between a perfectly valid (albeit snarky) analogy and an insult. I will always ruthlessly attack a ridiculous argument, as should anyone who values logic and reason, but I have yet to personally attack anyone ad hominem. To do so would itself be a logical fallacy, which I reject.

Having said that, many of the people behind the push to promote Intelligent Design as a "science" suitable for teaching in the classroom are fully aware that they are misrepresenting the definition of science just to cloud the issue in a backhanded attempt to get fundamentalist Christian creationism into the public schools. Those people are shameful and dishonest, and should be called out as such.

However, most of the laymen who think that I.D.=science are victims of the confusion, not the perpetrators of it, and therefore should be educated, not berated.

 

[TerriO]

Geoff, we have some devout Christians on the board and in this forum. This is not the place to call out people of other religions as "shameful and dishonest," nor is it the place to suggest that people haven't got a grasp of basic logic. You may not have attacked a single person ad hom, but you did take a swipe at a group of posters. Hence my request to dial it back. If that still doesn't make sense, feel free to PM me. Don't worry, it's not a warning, just a request to help smoothe the tone of what's already a bumpy dialogue.

Okay, in an attempt to get this back on track, here's a question.

Is theology enough of a science to back the notion of something branching from theology also being a science?

 

[David cgc]

Well, not a totally different kind of science, that's for certain. Theology, being concerned with history, philosophy, and social science, isn't equipped to branch out into biology, as it would with creationism or intelligent design. The only way that could happen is if something massive happened to change our understanding of both biology and theology, providing concrete and testable links between the two.