© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/evolution-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
For more than 160 years there has been a debate in the US regarding just how much religion should be allowed into public schools, and the debate has taken an ugly turn with the coining of “Intelligent Design Theory”—creationism with some insidious pseudo science added—and trying to push it into the science agenda op public schools.
I have no problem with teaching religion in schools. Religions played huge parts in history, in arts and humanities, and social evolution, but for the most part religion has been of detriment to science.
—Charles Darwin
Does this quote indicate that Darwin was hedging his bets on evolution, or was it made to sate his critics so he could get some work done? (Reading the rest of the passage reveals the answer to be the latter. It is an example of a “quote mine” often found in creationism vs evolution debates.)
In 2005, when the Kansas Board of Education scheduled a debate to determine teaching Intelligent Design as an equal alternative to evolution as the means the world was created, Bobby Henderson sent a letter asking that his flavor of Intelligent Design be given equal time as other flavors ID. His religion and beliefs are no less valid, no more or less provable, and has charts; being equal it should earn equal classroom time.
Bobby Henderson is the father of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. It is a religion with an invisible and undetectable god of pasta, meatballs, and eyeballs on stalks. Heaven has both a stripper factory and a beer volcano. Every Friday is a religious holiday. FSMism describes the Flying Spaghetti god creating the world with some trees, some mountains and a midget, and further that there is no means to disprove it, therefore if the Kansas Board of Education concludes to allows ID to be taught in science classes, they should also teach of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bobby Henderson’s letter to the Kansas Board of Education
The Wikipedia Entry on FSMism
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/evolution-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Speaking from a religious standpoint, I am one of the few, or maybe not so few, that see no conflict between science and religion. As such, I tend more toward the intelligent design theory than the Big Bang theory, but whole heartedly believe that evolution in its simplest definition: “evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.” (Google–> define:evolution).
I do approve of having the Big Bang Theory taught in schools as long as it is presented as a THEORY with other scientific THEORIES as to the origin of Life, The Universe, And Everything. It is a beatiful and interesting journey to see how theories evolve themselves and how modern discoveries warp and bend and shatter them. Other than as a reference to a possible theory, there is, in my opinion, no place for an in depth discussion on the intelligent design theory in such a class. If there is interest on behalf of the student, or his pushy parents, there should be religious classes created to introduce students to intelligent design theories where they can go over the Christian God, the Hindu God, the Scientology Aliens, or the other popular ones.
A science class is a class based upon the scientific process of observation and deduction and therefore religion doesn’t fit very well. If everything is taught as a theory, then the students can believe what they choose based upon their very own special belief system. Amen.
Just remember, the argument is not THEOLOGY vs. SCIENCE; science is after all a method, not a body of knowledge. The argument is whether or not Darwinism is a scientifically sound theory. The facts MUST stand on their own, and a *large* segment of the scientific research community has serious doubts about traditional Darwinism.
You’ve got to evaluate all of the facts, and the Christian world-view, more than any other, gives reasonable explanations that fit what we objectively observe.
Members of every religion are convinced that their organization has a monopoly on The One Truth. That’s a subjective stance, and is what every religion builds its foundations on. There’s nothing wrong with that. Science, on the other hand, points out through observation that the religions can’t ALL be true, because each one contradicts the others to some degree. That’s an objective stance, and is what science builds its foundations on. There’s nothing wrong with that, either.
But there IS something wrong with teaching subjective views (religion) in an environment which shoud be teaching objective information (school), especially in regards to something as life-altering as religion when impressionable youth is involved. If you’re a Christian, and your child was being taught Islamic beliefs by a school teacher who happened to be Muslim, how would you react?
May any teacher who peddles their own subjective views as facts be smitten by his mighty, noodly appendage.
http://www.m-w.com has 6 definitions of “theory”:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art *music theory*
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action *her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn* b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory *in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all*
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena *wave theory of light*
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject *theory of equations*
Of those, the Intelligent Design Theory fails to meet 3 of the definitions. 1) ID lacks any provable facts, 2) ID can be speculation 3) “body of fact”. 4) ID could be that … 5) “scientifically acceptable” or 6) yeah, give it that.
My point is that to even call it a theory when it is wholly untestable is erroneous. Sure, several type of ID can be taught in their place, but scientific method is all about testing, and where you can’t test, you can’t find science.
Jason, I don’t think you understand the debate.
First off, ID was not concocted by a group of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish conspirators. It has developed in the research community and was embraced by religous groups after the fact.
Secondly, it is a valid theory (as much as ANY theory about creation can be, as no one can reproduce that event – even evolutionists). All it says is that there is a lot of evidence that points to an intelligent creator that designed the universe in such a way that we could observe it in as much detail as we do.
It makes NO claims as to the nature of the creator him/itself. People read way too much into this. Relax,no one is forcing kids to become Christians.
I have a pretty good grip on the debate.
No one can reproduce the origins of the universe, given, but science is all about testing. ID is inherenatly untestable, thus how can it be science?
If you are right or wrong about intelligent design no one can yet prove it. However the evolution theory is mathematically implausible in that there was not enough time in the span given to do all of the mutations necessary and there are no found links to show proof. So what do you do, but give the students several theories and let them sort it out. But give them without prejudice. At my age, 73, I don’t remember anyone teaching either theory in an objective manner.
I created the universe. If you would like to know how i did it, just knock on wood.
You’re welcome. -RANDOMPERSON#2
“Mutations” don’t produce “better” anything. Mutations are not a good thing and cannot be proven within the fossil record as slowly, oh so slowly, becoming another or better creature because they…. just…. don’t…. exist. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz What? You found a mutated lizard fossil? My, my, just what did it go on to become? Or did you just find A MUTATED LIZARD FOSSIL. Unfortunately it happens to humans. Extra toes and fingers, unbalanced growth producing a not so healthy giant, two left feet. Take your pick of mutations; they don’t turn out well for the one that is mutated.
Anyway, when I was in school, I just answered the questions on the Evolution Theory the way they wanted them answered and “laughed and laughed” behind the back of my “educated teacher.” Then I stuck to my own Bible based beliefs my parents taught me. I can’t even fathom the horror of information they would teach with “Intelligent Design.” I think both courses should be tossed and have extra alternatives to choose from like “Healthy Lifestyle through Food and Fitness” or “Field Trips to Museums”; extra gym classes or art or dance. ANYTHING!!
JustAnotherName said: ““Mutations” don’t produce “better” anything. Mutations are not a good thing and cannot be proven within the fossil record as slowly, oh so slowly, becoming another or better creature because they…. just…. don’t…. exist. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz What? You found a mutated lizard fossil? My, my, just what did it go on to become? Or did you just find A MUTATED LIZARD FOSSIL. Unfortunately it happens to humans. Extra toes and fingers, unbalanced growth producing a not so healthy giant, two left feet. Take your pick of mutations; they don’t turn out well for the one that is mutated.
Anyway, when I was in school, I just answered the questions on the Evolution Theory the way they wanted them answered and “laughed and laughed” behind the back of my “educated teacher.” Then I stuck to my own Bible based beliefs my parents taught me. I can’t even fathom the horror of information they would teach with “Intelligent Design.” I think both courses should be tossed and have extra alternatives to choose from like “Healthy Lifestyle through Food and Fitness” or “Field Trips to Museums”; extra gym classes or art or dance. ANYTHING!!”
What are you talking about? Mutations are not inherently good or evil. For example, I’m 6’1”. A hundred years ago, in this area of the world, I would have been unusually tall. A thousand years ago I would have topped the local natives by a foot and a half easy. Our unusually tall nature in the 20th and 21st centuries is the result of mutation. It seems to be turning out fine for me.
As such, I tend more toward the intelligent design theory than the Big Bang theory, but whole heartedly believe that evolution in its simplest definition: “evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.” (Google–> define:evolution).
Sorry to say, but the Google definition is wrong… Evoution is more than that. There must be some natural selection, and some other unpleasant things for us to talk about evolution – you can find it if you really search for it. As far as Big Bang concerned, you might like one story over the other, but you make a big mistake. A scientific theory is NOT equivalent with the common meaning of the word. Ask it from the people of Hiroshima -after all, the General Relativity is “just” a theory as well. Evolution, Big Bang – there are strong, supporting evidence to these so called theories. Background radiation, genetics, fossils, observations, mathematical models – everything that science can throw at it. You can test it. You can see it work. On the other hand, ID does not have anything. Somebody says that some intelligent being did the work. No proof, no possibilities of testing, and more importantly – it doesn’t explain anything. What would you say, if youd doc said, that “well, Mr, you are at high risk of heart attack, the Gods wanted this way. Go and pray in a church.”?
“I do approve of having the Big Bang Theory taught in schools as long as it is presented as a THEORY with other scientific THEORIES as to the origin of Life, The Universe, And Everything. “
That’s the problem – there’s no alternative theory. At least, no scientific. So I guess, we can start teaching about all the alternative religious explanations (and I mean ALL of them) in science class. Maybe it was the Big Bang. Maybe Jahve. Maybe the Leopard God. Reading Adams shoould have tought you that :)
JustAnotherName said: ““Mutations” don’t produce “better” anything. Mutations are not a good thing and cannot be proven within the fossil record as slowly, oh so slowly, becoming another or better creature because they…. just…. don’t…. exist. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz What? You found a mutated lizard fossil? My, my, just what did it go on to become? Or did you just find A MUTATED LIZARD FOSSIL. Unfortunately it happens to humans. Extra toes and fingers, unbalanced growth producing a not so healthy giant, two left feet. Take your pick of mutations; they don’t turn out well for the one that is mutated.
Anyway, when I was in school, I just answered the questions on the Evolution Theory the way they wanted them answered and “laughed and laughed” behind the back of my “educated teacher.” Then I stuck to my own Bible based beliefs my parents taught me. I can’t even fathom the horror of information they would teach with “Intelligent Design.” I think both courses should be tossed and have extra alternatives to choose from like “Healthy Lifestyle through Food and Fitness” or “Field Trips to Museums”; extra gym classes or art or dance. ANYTHING!!”
Wow… Ignorance is bliss, I guess :) Let’s burn a witch tomorrow!!!!
Interesing Intelligent-Design related development: All eight Dover, Pennsylvania school board members up for re-election have been booted out after introducing intelligent design to the science classroom. In their place are a number of those who campaigned against the policy.
Alan Bellows said: “Members of every religion are convinced that their organization has a monopoly on The One Truth. That’s a subjective stance, and is what every religion builds its foundations on. There’s nothing wrong with that. Science, on the other hand, points out through observation that the religions can’t ALL be true, because each one contradicts the others to some degree. That’s an objective stance, and is what science builds its foundations on. There’s nothing wrong with that, either.
But there IS something wrong with teaching subjective views (religion) in an environment which shoud be teaching objective information (school), especially in regards to something as life-altering as religion when impressionable youth is involved. If you’re a Christian, and your child was being taught Islamic beliefs by a school teacher who happened to be Muslim, how would you react?
May any teacher who peddles their own subjective views as facts be smitten by his mighty, noodly appendage.”
I have a good knowledge on this subject, and I would have to say that Alan here also has a good grasp on this debate. I totally agree with everything he said. The main problem with the introduction of ID theory in class is that it can create confusion for students. The ID theory is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, therefore one cannot treat ID and the MODERN Evolution theory on equal grounds (key word here is MODERN, since it is vastly different from Darwinism). I agree that the student has a choice whether or not to believe the ID or the Evolution theory. However, there is ambiguity when you introduce both of them as objective knowledge (ie, the student may have trouble choosing because both of them cannot coexist). I hope those children turn out okay; a warped sense of the scientific method can never be beneficial.
Fact of the matter is, the term “Evolution theory” is very misunderstood by a vast majority of the population. The term theory does not imply a speculation, but rather ideas and experiments that are SUPPORTED by proof. For example, the “theory” of Gravity is still a scientific “theory” in the strict sense. However, your belief or disbelief in the theory of gravity does not change its reality. Similarly, the Modern Evolution theory tries to explain the changes and appearances of species on the geological time-scale. The explainations might change, true, but that is the nature of science. This is why science is reliable; its explanations approach asymptomatically to reality (not truth, if you want truth go to religion). However, the reality of evolution and mutations is here, it is merely our explainations that change (through technological advancement and discoveries). Science is simply a method to describe our reality, and yes, whether you like it or not, evolution and mutations are a reality (just read a science textbook and you’ll know).
Personally, I think the ID theory is misleading. They slapped the word “theory” on ID to make it look scientific, the problem is it’s not. ID is a religious idea and is closely tied to Creationism. If they taught ID as a religious idea, I would have no problem with it. That’s what religion classes are for. It’s kind of ironic to note that the people voting for education on the Kansas school board are themselves uneducated and uninformed.
Long live Bobby Henderson and the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I’d like to become a faithful member, where do I sign up?
Comment deleted… spam
spongya77 says:
“Sorry to say, but the Google definition is wrong… Evoution is more than that. There must be some natural selection, and some other unpleasant things for us to talk about evolution – you can find it if you really search for it.”
Not really. Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution. There are others. For instance, changes in gene frequency due solely to genetic drift represent evolution. Moreover, that sort of evolution has been observed repeatedly in humans, so is a useful thing to keep in mind in discussions like this.
Sambod 2 wrote:
“However the evolution theory is mathematically implausible in that there was not enough time in the span given to do all of the mutations necessary and there are no found links to show proof. So what do you do, but give the students several theories and let them sort it out. But give them without prejudice.”
1. Mathematically implausible things happen all the time. For instance, if you flip a coin a few thousand times, whatever outcome you get will be very unlikely. Similarly, any specific result of 6 billion years or so of molecular interactions will be mathematically implausible, and extremely so.
2. The “no links” idea, though put forth repeatedly, is silly. For any two data points, you can always argue that you’re missing the point in between. Fossils are discrete data points, so there will always be gaps. So what? We’ve got modern organisms, really old fossils, and a whole lot of stuff intermediate between the old stuff and the modern organisms. There’re lots of gaps, sure, but there will always be gaps and there’s no other explanation for the overall pattern.
3. There are no other theories to teach. There are disagreements within evolutionary theory, but no theory within biology competing with evolution. The “large number of scientists who disagree with evolution” nonsense is just a fabrication. Are there scientists who don’t accept evolution? Sure. But they’re people whose research doesn’t involve either evolution or even criticism of evolution.
bryce wrote:
“Secondly, it is a valid theory (as much as ANY theory about creation can be, as no one can reproduce that event – even evolutionists). All it says is that there is a lot of evidence that points to an intelligent creator that designed the universe in such a way that we could observe it in as much detail as we do.”
You’re making a common mistake. Evolution tells us how organisms change. It doesn’t tell us anything about where either the universe or life itself came from. It’s not supposed to. We have other theories for that. And, while we haven’t created artificial life, or an artificial universe, replications of evolution in the lab have happened repeatedly. No recreation of intelligent design’s effects on organismal modification has succeeded. To my knowledge, it hasn’t even been attempted.
Patrick Alexander
Posting only from an emotional point of view:
I believe both scientific theory and religion demand a good deal of faith. I also believe that science and religion have the potential to shed light on each other. Isn’t it Einstein that claimed the more he researched his theories, the more he believed in “God” ?
cedricindra said: “Posting only from an emotional point of view:
I believe both scientific theory and religion demand a good deal of faith. I also believe that science and religion have the potential to shed light on each other. Isn’t it Einstein that claimed the more he researched his theories, the more he believed in “God” ?”
Don’t take this the wrong way..I’m just looking for an example of religion shedding some light on science. Can you think of one? If so, please fill me in, i’m curious.
JustAnotherName said: “”Mutations” don’t produce “better” anything. Mutations are not a good thing and cannot be proven within the fossil record as slowly, oh so slowly, becoming another or better creature because they…. just…. don’t…. exist. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz What? You found a mutated lizard fossil? My, my, just what did it go on to become? Or did you just find A MUTATED LIZARD FOSSIL. Unfortunately it happens to humans. Extra toes and fingers, unbalanced growth producing a not so healthy giant, two left feet. Take your pick of mutations; they don’t turn out well for the one that is mutated.
Mutations are neither good nor bad. It only depends on the environment the organism is living in. For example, in humans there is a mutation in the red blood cells which prevents sickle cell anemia. Wait a second.. is that a good thing? Sure most mutations are bad, but there are some rare ones that are actually beneficial. read a science textbook please, and we’ll talk later.
“I believe both scientific theory and religion demand a good deal of faith.”
The difference is that science requires faith in reason and facts, whereas religion requires faith in ancient books and things you can’t see, measure, or otherwise detect.
Patrick Alexander
ID is an attempt to get religion into school through the back door. It accepts the parts of evolution that are inescapable and attributes the rest to god. it tries to reconcile religion and science.
read velikovsky. manna fell to earth because venus passed through our atmosphere, and so on.
people hate “I don’t know”, so they demand answers. in their absence, we will make them up if we must.
All through human history those things we couldn’t explain were explained by one god or another. thunder, lightning, the sun, whatever. even abstracts like love.
every generation thinks it is the pinnacle of mankind, and, for the moment, it is. our entire lives are only a snapshot and for all we are, mankind is still very much in its infancy.
It is a hypocritical double standard to accept the inference of inteligent origins behind the SETI “Wow! signal” and “The Strange Road to Atlantis” as scientific inferences and to reject the inteligent design found in all cells. The complexity and improbability of the structures found in even the simplest of cells easily outranks “the Wow! signal” and the “road to Atlantis” by many orders of magnitude. If it is not pseudoscience to infer that there is intelligence behind what is observed in the “Wow!” SETI signal, and if it is not pseudoscience to infer that there is intelligence behind the “road to Atlantis”, then argument that the inference of intelligent design is not scientific fails, because the inference is used all the time in the sciences.
No archaeologist looking at petroglyphs and wall paintings would infer that such things came about by errosion through the action of wind and water; they would identify such things as resulting from something intelligent, no matter how simple they may be. If the archaeologist is not denounced as practicing pseudoscience, neither should the biologist who concludes that the improbable processes and structures he observes is the result of intelligence.
Inferring that there had to be intelligent design behind the origins of life is not the “end of reason” that its opponents claim it to be, nor is it unscientific; such inferences are accepted elsewhere in the sciences as perfectly valid. Let me give you an example:
If any of you are familiar with geometric theorems concerning constructions, you may be familiar with the null-proof regarding trisecting an angle. It can’t be done. If you are familiar with basic physics, you also know that perpetual motion machines can’t be built. And of course, everyone knows about Fermat’s last theorem: there are no integer solutions for a^n + b^n = c^n where n > 2. Does proving that these can’t be done raise the alarm that mathematicians are giving up reason? Only a fool continues to try to trisect angles and build perpetual motion machines, or look for solutions to what Fermat’s theorem says doesn’t exist. A null proof isn’t the end of reason: it simply identifies what is pointless to keep looking for.
With that in mind, consider the inference of the necessity of an intelligent designer behind the origins of life to be a null proof against abiotic origins of life. How can that be? Couldn’t evolution by natural selection explain DNA, ribosomes, mRNA, and all that amazing nanotechnology and information handling that goes on in even the most primitive cells and viruses?
Frankly speaking, no it can’t. Evolution needs the following to happen:
1) Reproduction. If there is no reproduction, natural selection simply can’t happen. Natural selection kills the unfit, while the fit reproduce to displace the unfit, but with no existing reproduction, nothing happens.
2) Variation that is 3) heritable. Without variation, all specimens would have equal fitness, and no change would ever occur. Without heredity, all variation would be developmental and not genetic, and natural selection would never result in genetic change.
Evolution by natural selection cannot act on non-living, non-reproducing chemicals and result in the reproducing organisms with heredity and variation because all of the enormously complex things that evolutionary origin theorists are trying to explain with natural selection are prerequisites without which natural selection cannot even begin.
. . . hence the null proof. There is no point in searching for a consistent non-intelligent abiotic theory of origins, because it could not have happened that way. And if you think about it without bias and with consistency rather than double st andards, starting from here and inferring intelligent design behind the origins of life is therefore not unscientific. (See the above post regarding inferring the involvement of intelligence being used by SETI and archaeologists to differentiate the random and natural from that which is intelligent.)
As for whether or not this introduces religion as science, I say that it does not. This certainly has religious implications, but so does the theory of relativity, as does astrobiology (and SETI). Intelligent Design is not teaching *religious doctrine* (revelatory knowledge not based on logic and inferences from observations of nature); you don’t even have to conclude God designed anything; some folks believe space aliens designed us. (. . . Though that begs the question of their origins.) Raising a hoopla about ID being religion is a straw-man argument, and fixating on the religious implications is a red herring.
Religion is for the weak. Intelligent design is not so intelligent.
Wow, until just now I missed these comments on my articles … sorry if the topic is dead, but I wanted to make a couple notations of th0ught:
Berkana said: “… of course, everyone knows about Fermat’s last theorem: there are no integer solutions for a^n + b^n = c^n where n > 2.
I guess you didn’t see this article.
Berkana said: “…Evolution by natural selection cannot act on non-living, non-reproducing chemicals and result in the reproducing organisms with heredity and variation because all of the enormously complex things that evolutionary origin theorists are trying to explain with natural selection are prerequisites without which natural selection cannot even begin.
Evolution only deals with living things. I assume you’re trying to discredit abiogenesis, which is something else all together. Evolution is real, it happens, we can see it, measure it, there’s no fighting it.
Berkana said: “…Intelligent Design is not teaching *religious doctrine* (revelatory knowledge not based on logic and inferences from observations of nature); you don’t even have to conclude God designed anything; some folks believe space aliens designed us. (. . . Though that begs the question of their origins.)
And concluding that a god created the universe doesn’t demand that we question from where this god sprang? Who has the double standard here?
Science hasn’t developed a perfect answer as to how life came to be, but religon isn’t an answer.
Jason Bellows said: “Wow, until just now I missed these comments on my articles … sorry if the topic is dead, but I wanted to make a couple notations of th0ught:
I guess you didn’t see this article.
I did read that article. Please read the article yourself.
Wiles DID NOT FIND A SOLUTION to a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer n larger than 2; he PROVED THAT THERE IS NO SOLUTION. In otherwords, he proved Fermat’s last theorem correct by providing a null proof.
Evolution only deals with living things. I assume you’re trying to discredit abiogenesis, which is something else all together. Evolution is real, it happens, we can see it, measure it, there’s no fighting it.
Read what I wrote, please.
I didn’t try to disprove evolution; I’m simply stating that the mechanism of evolution (namely natural selection of a population of reproducing organisms with heritable variance) cannot account for the origins of life, yet it is taught that somehow, given enough time, this process can bootstrap up its prerequisites. That is patently absurd.
And concluding that a god created the universe doesn’t demand that we question from where this god sprang? Who has the double standard here?
Don’t jump to conclusions; epistemologically speaking, Inteligent Design doesn’t conclude that a god created the universe; it concludes that something intentional and intelligent had to be the causal first step in the origin of life. What I presented as the reasoning against abiogenesis does not force you to conclude who or what is responsible.
However, you are right on one point: concluding that something transcendant created the universe does demand that we question our philosphy of everything, because the implications are profound. It does not, however, demand that we question from where this god sprang; that is unknowable by observation.
All of our major scientific discoveries have had philosophical implications. This one is no different. However, if you reject sound reasoning because you don’t like the implications, you’re no better than those who rejected heliocentrism or a round earth or evolution (of living populations). Yes, intelligent design has the philosophical implication of God , and therefore, the possibility of revealed religion, but again, if you let your distaste for the implications to veto the reasoning and observations, you’re putting the cart before the horse.
Science hasn’t developed a perfect answer as to how life came to be, but religon isn’t an answer.
This is a straw-man argument. I didn’t say religion is the answer to science problems; I’m saying that you can scientifically and reasonably conclude intelligent design, all without invoking revealed knowledge (a.k.a. religion). This doesn’t mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or whatever is proved right, or any of that; it strictly does nothing more than conclude that life was started by some cause that was non-evolutionary and apparently intelligent. It has huge philosophical implications pertaining to religion, but you can leave it at that. ID, as a scientific epistemology, cannot go beyond that conclusion to make assertions about revealed religion.
I love debating, don’t get me wrong, but let’s get some items clear first: you are defending your god, not some neglected form of science. It says right on your site that “Berkana signifies rebirth and new beginnings; I have found these in Jesus Christ.” No matter how you dress up ID it must boil down to god, so call it what it is.
Berkana said: I did read that article. Please read the article yourself.
It’s not a null theorem! We can’t have an intelligent debate by tossing out falsehoods. Read up.
Berkana said: It does not, however, demand that we question from where this god sprang; that is unknowable by observation.
That’s why ID isn’t science–the old “You can’t ever know” clause.
Berkana said: if you let your distaste for the implications to veto the reasoning and observations.
But all the observation we have to support any sort of ID is that you don’t understand how the complexity of life came to be, thus it had to have been a designer. Just because you and I and science don’t know the answer yet doesn’t mean that we must default to “some greater designer whom we don’t understand did it”. That’s contrary to science. If you don’t know a thing, figure it out, don’t rest your laurels on an old book whose only evidence is itself and the unquantifiable feelings in your heart.
It’s not that I’m against having a god, it’s just that if you want to call him science you need to find him through science. What do you have in that vein? And “Because A cannot be true, B must be” doesn’t count.
to much stuff to read so ill post my opinion…. or multiple opinions/ explenations… sorry if they make no sense
1. what if ‘God’ (wich ever one you want) made humans evolve and wants us to belive in evolution (far fetched i know but how many of us really no what He is thinking?)
2. no god.
3. science was created by God for us.
4. there really is a FSM. (im a pastafarian sooo..)
5. aliens created us…
6.evolution
7. those of us who believe on God (christians) were created by him…. those who belive FSM (me) were created by the FSM. those who dont belive in anything but evolution (wich could be a realigion or a philosophy or something like that0 were created by evolution. and so on and so on snd so on … for any and every religion.
8. we havent hit upon the true theory/religion/ w/e yet.
I think thats all the possible ones…
now onto whether the schools should be teaching ID.
1. yes they should- if they teach ID then they need to teach every students ideas about evoluton or FSM or w/e they think. not only would it diversify the other students it would help the students w/ their religion. also if they teach ID then they should do it from different views and standpoints… or instead of teaching in science class make a comparitive religion class for those students who wish to take it and teach it there. but if you do that you must create it with all diff religions in mind. (or some other class )
2. no they shouldnt- the constitution has that whole seperation of church and state thingy. they dont normaly teach every type of theory of how we are here so then they shouldnt if they dont.it might make some ppl angry… but you cant please everyone. as a 10th grade charter/homeschooled student…. my school cant teach ID or FSM or anything like that because we have so many parents who shelter theyre children…. ( i said dope and got in trouble because a parent didnt want theyre child to know about that sort of thing) so i can see why it would be a bad idea to teach this stuff.
I think that if a school is going to teach ID then they should also represent each and every theory that is also requested in the class. other wise they arent being fair. or they shouldnt teach it at all. no matter what happens teach it dont… no matter what is right what is true or wrong or not rue theyre will always be those of us who will argue, not argue, care or not care. there will always be those of us who thonk that they should or should nt do something. those who will fight for all theorys to be equally represented because it is ‘right’
or wrong. those who will fight back because it is ‘right or wrong. no matter wich religion may it be muslim or christianity or hinduism or a pagan or even FSM there will be those who disagree ,agree or not give aflying fart in space what happens. so i guess what im trying to say is im one of those ppl who wants ID tought in schools – but only if MY religions idea of what happened goes on the curriculum or my friends idea or not all . no evolution or theorys. teach it all if the students want it. or dont teach anything no science(evolution of Id or FSM or anything … it shouldnt be a problem. by the time we actualy get to evolution in schools we should be allowed to form our own opinions…. so does it really make that much of a difference on what is taught?
yes i no i rambled and it may not have made sense but still…. any questions about FSMinism and were to see it you can contact me at HP_band_nerd2@yahoo.com or you can contact me to debate or talk or w/e
Hannah X.
Woah I hate these debates no one can really win but you can try to make the other side look like idiots so here we go.
Let’s start at the top the Charles Darwin quote,
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
—Charles Darwin
This is not an argument for or against Creationism and I know the author wasn’t using it as such. There are a few things you have to remeber. Darwin had been brought up with the bible all his life to even suggest evolution was very brave perhaps he was trying to find a middle-ground where he could do his research without getting lynched. Secondly he was only at the beggining of the theory of evolution if he saw all the evidence we had now he may change his mind. Thirdly, we are a million miles from Darwin’s theory of evolution he thought organisms evolve to more complex organisms we no longer think this. We are in his debt for the advancements he made in this area of science but we have moved on.
On this topic I’d like to point out to all creationists I DON’T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAID! Yes Einstein was constantly talking about God but so what? When you say these things it is an “Appeal To Authority” you are basically saying “He said it so it must be true” and I hope you can see the flaw in this.
Next
Josh Harding said: I do approve of having the Big Bang Theory taught in schools as long as it is presented as a THEORY with other scientific THEORIES as to the origin of Life, The Universe, And Everything. It is a beatiful and interesting journey to see how theories evolve themselves and how modern discoveries warp and bend and shatter them. Other than as a reference to a possible theory, there is, in my opinion, no place for an in depth discussion on the intelligent design theory in such a class. If there is interest on behalf of the student, or his pushy parents, there should be religious classes created to introduce students to intelligent design theories where they can go over the Christian God, the Hindu God, the Scientology Aliens, or the other popular ones.”
This paragraph is somewhat of an oxymoron. CREATIONISM ISN’T A THEORY. As you say in the paragraph theorys warp bend and sometimes are turned completly on their head. Creationism doesn’t do this it’s just a block of people repeating over and over again the same mantra with some questionable science included. You also go on to talk about “The other popular ones” Which is really the problem that the FSM is trying to point out. There are millions of diferent creation myths would we also teach about the Roman and Greek gods? Evolution, while not perfect, is backed up by a large body of evidence, creationism isn’t.
bryce said: “Just remember, the argument is not THEOLOGY vs. SCIENCE; science is after all a method, not a body of knowledge. The argument is whether or not Darwinism is a scientifically sound theory. The facts MUST stand on their own, and a *large* segment of the scientific research community has serious doubts about traditional Darwinism.
You’ve got to evaluate all of the facts, and the Christian world-view, more than any other, gives reasonable explanations that fit what we objectively observe.”
Talking about Darwinism is pointless our modern ideas about evolution are very far from what Darwin first thought.
bryce said: “Jason, I don’t think you understand the debate.
First off, ID was not concocted by a group of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish conspirators. It has developed in the research community and was embraced by religous groups after the fact.
Secondly, it is a valid theory (as much as ANY theory about creation can be, as no one can reproduce that event – even evolutionists). All it says is that there is a lot of evidence that points to an intelligent creator that designed the universe in such a way that we could observe it in as much detail as we do.
It makes NO claims as to the nature of the creator him/itself. People read way too much into this. Relax,no one is forcing kids to become Christians.”
ID developed in the research community? Really? I dont think so. Someone wrote it down in a book a very long ago probably because he had a dream about it or something.
Berkana said: “No archaeologist looking at petroglyphs and wall paintings would infer that such things came about by errosion through the action of wind and water; they would identify such things as resulting from something intelligent, no matter how simple they may be. If the archaeologist is not denounced as practicing pseudoscience, neither should the biologist who concludes that the improbable processes and structures he observes is the result of intelligence.”
Yes noone would say an oil painting was created this way but the universe isn’t an oil painting. You can see erosion happening so it isn’t pseudoscience to claim that over a long period of time a mountain could be worn down to nothing. A biologist who looks at something like an eye is allowed to think “Wow that’s amazing” but to go on and say that an eye could only be created by intelligent design without first looking for any evidence is practising pseudoscience. They are being very short term in their thinking, they see an eye and assume it must of always been this way I’m sure you can see the problem in this.
Berkana said: I didn’t try to disprove evolution; I’m simply stating that the mechanism of evolution (namely natural selection of a population of reproducing organisms with heritable variance) cannot account for the origins of life, yet it is taught that somehow, given enough time, this process can bootstrap up its prerequisites. That is patently absurd.”
We don’t know how life started but saying that doesn’t mean life isn’t here. It is here and it does evolve what you’re saying is
“Life can’t of started the way evolutionists say it does so evolution can’t happen the way evolutionists say it does”
This is a bait and switch arguement and it isn’t a null proof at all. We can observe evolution in fruit flys because they breed every few weeks and what about bacteria that becomes antibiotic immune? Evolution happens don’t try and dissprove that by dissproving something else.
Finally I would like to say a lot of people retreat into ID because admitting that things are created by accident is too much for them. Evolution is amazing and in it’s own way devine. To think my eyes are purely created by accident is inspiring it doesn’t scare me or make me sad that we’re all a huge coincedence not having God in your life makes you free it’s hard to understand but it does.
Unfortunately this is one of the most ridculous debates going around at the moment. Those that are willing to accept science as the way forward, will accept evolution as a mechanism for change (not specifically creation). Otherwise you’ll simply believe in whatever has been made up. Don’t get me wrong, ID may well turn out to be correct, but I’ll need a very good reason to switch off and accept such an unterly incomplete “theory”. Myself, I’m inclined to accept the collected and tested evidence of evolution. “Because life is too complex” is not an agument, it is a statment of lack of intelligence, information, and curiosity.
It’s not a null theorem! We can’t have an intelligent debate by tossing out falsehoods. Read up.
I read it. Perhaps it is not called a ‘null’ theorem, but you are mistaken about what the proof was. The proof for Fermat’s last theorem was a proof that there cannot be a solution. Wiles did not find a solution to the problem posed by the theorem, he proved the theorem’s assertion that there is no solution. (Last I remembered, that’s called a null proof.) As I said, this is not the end of reason; it marks a dead end beyond which you can know there is no answer.
That’s why ID isn’t science–the old “You can’t ever know” clause.
Sir, you’re confusing two issues. ID is about the origin of life, not the origin of God. You’re right that you can never know about God’s origins unless God tells you and you decide to believe it, and that is purely revelation, and not science. That’s not what I’m talking about, nor what ID is about. ID is science in that like Fermat’s last theorem: it shows that there is no solution down the natural selection path.
But all the observation we have to support any sort of ID is that you don’t understand how the complexity of life came to be, thus it had to have been a designer. Just because you and I and science don’t know the answer yet doesn’t mean that we must default to “some greater designer whom we don’t understand did it”. That’s contrary to science. If you don’t know a thing, figure it out, don’t rest your laurels on an old book whose only evidence is itself and the unquantifiable feelings in your heart.
It is not contrary to science to stop looking down paths that are proven to not have answers. Again, I point to Fermat’s last theorem, which was proven to have no answer. And lastly:
It’s not that I’m against having a god, it’s just that if you want to call him science you need to find him through science. What do you have in that vein? And “Because A cannot be true, B must be” doesn’t count.”
It does, and I’ll tell you why: there is no other possibility. Let me repeat the reasoning: 1) Life could not have come into being through natural selection of a population with heritable variation because all the mechanisms which we are trying to explain are prerequisites for natural selection to work. 2) We make scientific inferences of intelligent causality all the time, and there is far more supporting such an inference here than anywhere else. We accept the process of logical elimination elsewhere all the time, and in this case, the other options are thoroughly eliminated.
What you’re doing is ruling out the inference of intelligent causation arbitrarily–in spite of it being the only logical option left–because it leads to a conclusion you do not like; namely, that it implies the existence of God, or at least a deity or deities of some sort.
Jason,
Take a look at what you said in a new light:
But all the observation we have to support any sort of ID is that you don’t understand how the complexity of life came to be, thus it had to have been a designer. Just because you and I and science don’t know the answer yet doesn’t mean that we must default to “some greater designer whom we don’t understand did it”. That’s contrary to science. If you don’t know a thing, figure it out, don’t rest your laurels on an old book whose only evidence is itself and the unquantifiable feelings in your heart.
Imagine if someone said that the Pyramids of Egypt and the Sphinx were natural phenomena. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You and I and science have no answer for how they could possibly have come into being by natural processes, so we reasonably conclude that something intelligent built these monuments. There is nothing contrary to science about it. Articles elsewhere here on Damn Interesting do likewise: the SETI “Wow” signal, and the “road to Atlantis”, for example. Why don’t you call these contrary to science? Why don’t you insist archaeologists figure out how these could have been natural phenomena? Because there is a reasonable improbability and enough specificity for us to infer that they are the product of something intelligent.
And you seem to be fond of straw men arguments, saying “don’t rest your laurels on an old book whose only evidence is itself and the unquantifiable feelings in your heart.” I didn’t once invoke the Bible or feelings in my heart in my explanation of why the origin of life implies that a creator exists. I invoked common practices that we see in archaeology and other sciences: the inference of intelligent causation, and logic, by which I showed that you cannot explain prerequisite mechanisms of a phenomenon by invoking the phenomenon that the mechanisms are responsible for.
Berkana said:”Imagine if someone said that the Pyramids of Egypt and the Sphinx were natural phenomena. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You and I and science have no answer for how they could possibly have come into being by natural processes, so we reasonably conclude that something intelligent built these monuments.”
We don’t conclude that the sphinx was man-made becuase we know no natural process that could bring them into being. We conclude they are man-made becuase we examine the structure, compared it to other structures, and find the marks of its construction.
Maybe at the pith of the debate is that we don’t really understand life yet. We can’t reverse engineer the process and look at the elements that were brought together to build it. Once we do, then I’m sure new light will be shed on the matter.
Remember the face on Mars that was such a sensation for a while? Looking at if many people knew that it had to have an intelligent designer. It was closer examination of the face that showed that there was no design … it was a collusion of geography and light.
You seem to be falling back on god as a sort of Ocham’s Razor since you don’t yet know what could have spawned life. Cop-out.
Berkana – the whole reproduction thing? Ever heard of prions? Nice little molecules, not living at all, but they reproduce. It’s why they’re so dangerous (Sleeping sickness, may be involved in Mad Cow), you can’t kill them because they’re not alive.
Next, would people kindly stop calling evolution a theory as if that meant it was just something somebody dreamed up out of nowhere? In science an explanation that hasn’t been tested is called a hypothesis. To earn the title of theory a hypothesis has to be run through the mill – lots. Gravity (as someone pointed out earlier) is a theory. There are still arguments as to the mechanism of gravity, but it doesn’t invalidate the theory, let alone the gravity itself. I haven’t heard anyone arguing against the existance of gravity in a long, long – well, ever.
Mutations can be good, bad, or neutral, and which they are can depend upon circumstances. Ever wonder why sickle-cell anemia, which seems like a pretty straightforward bad mutation is so prevalent in Africa? Because the anemia itself is recessive, while the heterogenous state is protective against malaria. So in a malaria-heavy region of the world, the sickle-cell mutation may well count as more helpful than not.
I am a religious person (Catholic actually) who was taught to respect our tradition but think for myself too. My parents did not want to enroll me in Catholic school because of their horrible experiences as children with abusive nuns. Granted we didn’t really have very many nuns when I was growing up in the 80s, but they felt that the public schools were better. I am a “scientist” too (computer scientist! but a scientist nonetheless).
And in case anyone wants to attack me about my comment about abusive nuns, please be advised that these were specific teachers that they had to deal with that abused them verbally and sometimes even physically. I happen to have friends that are nuns who are not abusive in the slightest.
I have never understood why people think that science can necessarily explain a mystery as profound, deep, and beyond human comprehension as I believe God is. I see no conflict between my religious beliefs and saying that science shows us that evolution is likely to have happened. Evolution does not detract from the religious experience I have had. I do not feel threatened by it. Saying that I believe that evolution happened and it was guided by God is simply a belief. It is not considered (at least given our current base of scientific knowledge) a scientific fact and may or may not be objectively verifiable. I say “may or may not” because it’s possible that someday some new discoveries could allow verification — but I strongly doubt it. Part of my belief system is that God wants to be somewhat mysterious to keep us searching for him. Again, a belief I have. I can only share my beliefs with others, and if someone doesn’t want to hear about them, then I’m not going to expend the energy trying to convince them. Whether they decide they agree with my belief or not is not something I can or should try to control.
It’s instructive to me personally that Jesus never forced anyone to believe anything. Never. All he did was walk this earth, be himself, and deal with people where they were at.
I learned my faith from my parents. My parents focused on love, not on negative aspects of religion that turn people off to it. I fear that people feel they have to fight this rediculous war on evolution is because their religion is not one of love, tolerance, and respect for others — respect for people where they are at.
You’ve got to evaluate all of the facts, and the Christian world-view, more than any other, gives reasonable explanations that fit what we objectively observe.”
Well…yes. That’s what creation myths DO after all.
Christian values, the golden rule…awesome.
Fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise…evil.
Stifling the beliefs of others simply because they are not your own is never right. Ever.
Scientists reponses (including references and further reading) to ID/Creationist’s claims about evolution are well documented here:
http://www.talkorigins.org & http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
“Science hasn’t developed a perfect answer as to how life came to be, but religon isn’t an answer.”
That’s harsh man. Just because I believe that someone designed and built the house, rather than a pile of bricks, mortar and dynomite spontaneously combusting and forming a perfect house doesn’t mean I’m ill-informed, stupid or naive. (PS That was an illustration representing the earth)
Okay, sure RELIGION may not be the answere, but perhaps the Bible is.
“I have no problem with teaching religion in schools. Religions played huge parts in history, in arts and humanities, and social evolution, but for the most part religion has been of detriment to science.”
Sometimes quotes like these just lead me to wonder if the person in question has actually read the Bible.
Purely because in the book of Isaiah, the earth is described as a cirle which hangs upon nothing. That’s not a quote because I do not have a Bible on me currently, but we’re all pretty aware that the Bible was around before everyone realised that A) the earth was a sphere (oblate spereoid for you picky people) B) we dicovered that it’s the complex gravitational system of our universe that holds the earth in place (rather then a Titan called Atlas.)
Sure, I know the Bible isn’t a scientific book, but when it does refer to a scientific fact it is correct. (Please read the whole of the Bible personally before retaliating to this comment.)
I’m not trying to be aggressive about this, but from a creationist’s perspective it can get a little tiring when most of the educational and political systems in the world (not to mention plenty of the population in the western world) seemingly give credit to almost any idea EXCEPT creation these days and scoff at the people who believe and put faith in it.
To anyone who actually took the time to read my ramblings: Thank you.
I like how it’s easy for people to disprove evolution and say that creation is right cause the bible said so. I find it easier to believe that we evolved over millions of years from next to nothing into what we are now, rather than two fully grown humans appearing from nowhere. You just can’t make something from nothing.
Berkana said: “…. Articles elsewhere here on Damn Interesting do likewise: the SETI “Wow” signal, and the “road to Atlantis”, for example. Why don’t you call these contrary to science? Why don’t you insist archaeologists figure out how these could have been natural phenomena? Because there is a reasonable improbability and enough specificity for us to infer that they are the product of something intelligent.
…”
Actually, the “road to Atlantis” is natural, not man-made.
Intelligent Design is, one, more aptly referred to as a hypothesis than a theory, and, two, will in all likelihood lead us in circles. If intelligence begets intelligence, then the intelligence which created and or influenced evolution throughout the continuing process of evolution is merely a creation of another intelligence. Although Intelligent Design might prove the existence of a pre-existing intelligence(s) – a literal circle of intelligences creating intelligences – it ultimately does not answer the question of where original life might have come from.
Furthermore, unless this intelligence literally created living cells, then this intelligence would require other materials (nonliving, but showing live traits – something like viruses, perhaps) to put together in order, then guide towards the present array of organisms. If it was an ‘intelligence’ and it was supposed to guide, the ‘mistakes’ that appear through historical records – organisms being replaced by other organisms that have a better survival rate based on environmental factors – would not exist. Or exist so minimally that it is hardly noticeable.
If, however, there was something of a trial and error process involved, then that would rule out most of Intelligent Design’s claim of having a higher intelligence kick-start or guide evolution on the basis that the trial and error process would be needed to start or perfect something that has heretofore never existed in its current form. In this case, ‘orignal life.’ Yet to get ‘original life’ from ‘not-life’ is something Intelligent Design is arguing against. (Well, as far as I can tell.)
Real, tested theories are based on something that is observable, with a dash of belief and reasoning out loopholes, as well as logically connecting clues to form the larger picture. At the moment, the only scientifically sound observation of Intelligent Design is the historical claims of a higher intelligence, as this would fall in anthropology – and, only then, the observation is of books and paintings. And although books and paintings are wonderful and all, these intelligences were also used as an explanation for various nonliving aspects of the universe, such as lightning, volcanoes, and other such which has been disproved today.
Berkana, I agree that modern evolutionary theory is quite lacking in its current ability to provide an explanation for the origin of life. But whether some proto-evolutionary process began life or life was begun by an intelligent designer, evolution by natural selection (and other selectionary pressures) so far appears to be the most likely scientific explanation for the astounding diversity of life-forms that exist and have existed.
In relation to the WOW Signal: Scientists aren’t saying that due to its complexity, it is impossible for the signal to have a natural explanation (which is what ID is saying about the eye or the bacterial flagellum for example), just that intelligence is a bit more likely to explain that signal than the usual uninteresting signals encountered. The complexity of the signal suggests that it warrants further investigation, just as if you flipped a coin 100 times and it came up heads each time you might say “Wow” and have a closer look at the coin and realise that it is an unevenly weighted trick coin.
I concede that extremely detailed and seemingly highly improbable structures such as the mammal eye DO make the probability of intellegent design being their origin a little more likely than simpler biological structures do. Nevertheless, like the WOW Signal, scientists will continue to do experiments, research and exploration in an attempt to discover whether or not a biological explanation is possible. If somehow someone could prove that the eye for example could not possibly evolve naturally (And although the mathematical improbability of the eye is one factor to take into consideration, an evolutionary origin for the eye has not been disproven. Similarly, many mathematicians suspected that Fermat’s Last Theorem was correct, based on their failure to find any solutions to a^n + b^n = c^n after having tried fitting many numbers into the equation, yet these mathematicians had not proved the Theorem, so were not wasting their time trying to prove it wrong. Scientists trying to find biological explanations for life on Earth are also not wasting their time.), effectively disproving evolution (or some part of it), then it may be reasonable to believe in non-scientific ID, since there would be no scientific explanations available (just like how many scientists believe God may have caused the Big Bang, since (so far) there is no scientific explanation available to descrive pre-Big Bang events). Nevertheless, this does not make ID a scientific theory any more than God as the initiator of the Big Bang is a scientific theory.
By “God” I’m of course not referring to any specific religious God, and I just chose that label for simplification. The nature of the intelligent designer (if there is one) is inherently unscientific.
For the record, I am Jewish and consider science and religion to be compatible. (As an interesting aside, a Rabbi in the Middle Ages (I think), used his religious learnings to derive an age for the universe of roughly 15 billion years! – very close to the 13.7 billion years currently accepted by science.) I believe life originated on Earth through some sort of as yet unclear proto-evolutionary process, and not directly by God, and that Biblical Creation is an allegory. I believe that God created the Big Bang.
My apologies for my at times quite awkward use of parentheses, but that’s the way I speak (with frequent tangential self-interjections), and hence write. A bad habit, I know. If my writing is too convoluted, let me know and I’m more than happy to rephrase any of it.
As a few people have said in scientific terms a theory is an idea that has been rigerously tested and has been found to fit all our current understanding, they also make as few assumptions as possible. However to me ID appears more to be a hypothesis (just an unproven idea) at best. Any non religious interpretation involves living intelligent aliens who would have had to have been designed themselves this eventualy leads to the question of an origional creator who somehow developed or otherwis has inteligence and the ability to create life without having been created its self, this sounds like the standard idea for a creator god however that is my interpretation but if anyone can think of another source of the origional creator i will be willing to hear them out.
Since one of the arguments is that complexity in non living materials like cave paintings or pyramids have been designed so biological complexity should be judged in the same way ignores the very point of evolution, organisms change and this often leads to increaced complexity, it also fails to concider that living and non livin systems behave and change in very different ways. It also ignors natural complexity such as the exact shape of a cave or mountain.
Another argument that specific and complicated structure such as an eye or flagellum are incredibly unlikely to arrise due to chance so they were designed is very simmaler in principal to taking a pack of playing cards shuffeling them and laying them out in a row, the chance of the combination you get is 1.2 X 10 ^-68.
If you would prefer it as a decimal its 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012 this is an incredibly small number so by the same reasoning used to argue ID some higher being decided you would get that sequence of cards and it is not due to random chance.
However i am not against religion often religious values are positive so they or simmaler values should be followed by everyone but religious stories are to me just that stories. ID dose not have any solid evidence to support it so untill ID goes through rigerous and replicable scientific evaluation by unbiased people in the same way other accepted theorys do i think it should be either taught as a religious view with other religious ideas.
I know that probably seems a bit garbled and possibly hard to follow but i just seem to write and argue in this style it isnt intentional and that is a set of points i have waited a long time to express somewhere.
bryce said: “Just remember, the argument is not THEOLOGY vs. SCIENCE; science is after all a method, not a body of knowledge. The argument is whether or not Darwinism is a scientifically sound theory. The facts MUST stand on their own, and a *large* segment of the scientific research community has serious doubts about traditional Darwinism.
You’ve got to evaluate all of the facts, and the Christian world-view, more than any other, gives reasonable explanations that fit what we objectively observe.”
Regarding that last sentence – show me God’s fingerprints on a cockroach, and I’ll follow you.
P.S. I dislike your obssessive, slavish, preposterous beliefs.
45th!
Anyone remember the fact that Darwin was a trained theologian, not a scientist? He thoroughly never earned an accredited degree with any recognized school of science. He gained much “reputation” as a scientist, biologist & botanist but was trained as an Anglican clergyman. He began medical school to be trained as a surgeon but quit after a few weeks being sickened by the sight of blood.
Darwin suffered many sicknessess in his lifetime and lost three children while they were still young. He made no attempt to hide the fact that it was his own physical limits and the unfortunate death of his children that caused him to surrender his belief in God to agnosticism.
Now I ask myself, “Why would I want to hang my scientific hat as to the origins of life on this guys hat rack?” I might as well believe in the googley-eyed spaghetti monster.
I hate this debate about science versus religion. Science doesn’t prove whether there is a god or not, it simply attempts to explain and understand the mechanisms of the earth and the universe. Even the big bang theory, does not seek to prove there is not a god as it only seeks to explain the moments after the initial reaction, you can still place your giant ball of taggliatelle at the switch to start it all if you so wish.
Personally, I would rather use the scientific methodology to explain why things happen rather than the theological one.
Giant plague, millions dying:
Theology = Deeemed by god, were being punished, therefore we all die!!
Science= Its a disease, lets seek to find out its mechanism, and therefore a cure or preventative.
But thats just me.
(BTW I apologise for the poor grammer and spelling. It was deemed by the spaghetti god that I should have a killer hangover this morning. Oh great pasta one, why do you smite me so?!!)
Flying Spaghetti Monster = Bertrand Russell’s unobservable teapot. Credit where credit’s due.
quote:-
You’ve got to evaluate all of the facts, and the Christian world-view, more than any other, gives reasonable explanations that fit what we objectively observe.
roflmao
some people are dumber than rocks.
wait a minute, that must mean dawin was wrong
doh :-)
so spaghetti monsters it is :D
This is my first post on this site. Hi everybody! Anyway, down to buisness, a few things I’d like to say after reading EVERY SINGLE FREAKING COMMENT (My eyes hurt…):
Firstly: Why is it so hard to believe that a complex structure, such as an eye, was not a product of evolution? Is it not possible that in the oceans of earth, many, many years ago, some sort of creature was born with a freak mutation: Cells that could sense light?
Obviously, this would be a huge advantage over the poor bastards without this new ability. It would live to breed another day, and pass it on to its’ decendants. These guys with extremely primitive eyes would of ruled the seas… until either something that could eat it, or whatever it ate, gained a similar adaption. An eye for an eye, after all. Soon the race for survival depends on who sees who first… these light sensors become more complex as the poor sighted starve or get eaten themselves. Eventually they have primitive fish or anthropod or whatever eyes. Yay for vision!
This isn’t necessarily what happened, ofcourse, just me telling a little story of what might have happened… but it shows my basic point: it’s pretty obvious that as far as evolution goes, eyes came about in much the same way everything else came about through evolution… over time. Eyes as we know them likely didn’t just pop in from nothing.
I find it strange that most creationists find it hard to believe that something as complex as an eye would HAVE to of been guided into creation by an intelligent…uh…creator… but yet an incredibly powerful being who can create whole universes, worlds, scrumpy and apparently eyes just popped out of nothing.
As for science never being able to explain where life came from in the first place, WRONG. At least, as far as we know. You can’t say that science will never figure that out, unless you happen to live forever. Science is always discovering new things… hell, discovering new things is a big part of what science IS. A possible explanation for life is probably some sort of reaction between random non-living cells and some kind of stimulae, like a big arse blast of lightening or heat in the right conditions. Once again, more specualtion on my behalf, but something similar COULD of happened. I think I’ve read something about that, actually, but don’t quote me on it. Anyway, this argument is about evolution. Not the beginnings of life.
And on to my last point for now, if anyone actually reads this. Why do people take the whole bible literally? It is meant as a religious, moral and spiritual guide. The stories usually have a moral to them … I haven’t read all of the bible, so don’t ask me for examples. Remember, the bible wasn’t written by God himself. It’s a big bunch of stories that were compiled by monks and preists and the like over a long time. There were many more religious stories than what went in the bible. If things have been omitted, then either the bible is a guide on how to be a good Christian, and some of the stories were not included because they did not convey a Christianly message, or the Bible is a literal take on the history of the world, and things have been taken out because the higher ups are LYING TO YOU. It is meant to convey religious themes and messages, not to be used as a tool to try and disclaim scientific research. Religion is spiritual. Spiritual stuff is something beyond the physical world. Science is real world stuff, studying things from what we see in the physical world. There is no reason why the two can’t coexist. Science isn’t at war with religion, despite what most creationists will have you believe.
SUMMARY:
Religion – Spiritual.
Science – Physical.
Trying to explain religion as a science – Absolutely Mental.
No, no, NO! Jason has it ALL WRONG!!! Heaven does not have just one stripper factory and beer volcanoes, it is FILLED with them.
Oh. I was genuinely looking forward to reading 50 comments all about pastafarians. Ah, the disappointment of life…and off-topic posters.
I can’t take credit for this one (it’s Dr Karl Kruszelnicki’s) but what about all those things that _aren’t_ designed intelligently? Surely if humans were designed intelligently, we’d have more durable knees; tonsils and appendixes that don’t get infected at the drop of a hat; teeth that didn’t need constant cleaning… and you mean to say all those evolving microbes that kill millions of people every year were actually designed? What bastard would do that?
And if we were _designed_, how to you account for the physical differences in humans over just the last 5,000 years? Such as people being on average a foot taller than we were – and our skulls that changed dramatically in just 500 years (see https://www.damninteresting.com/?p=388). So if design requires building to specifications… this evidence would seem to suggest the specs are changing regularly in response to environmental factors.
Whichever way you break it down, you just can’t get away from a theological argument rather than one based on evidence (and not just the ‘lack’ of evidence – which is the basis of ID – otherwise known as the God of the gaps…). And evidence isn’t ‘if you can’t explain A, then it must be B’.
Oh, and I should just reiterate that science isn’t about presenting a bunch of ‘facts’ – it’s a method. If you think about science like answering a maths problem at school, the important part is all about showing how you arrived at your answer, rather than simply presenting the answer. Hey, the answer might be correct (and perhaps something intelligent DID design the universe), but the evidence points far more towards evolution than ID.
Interesting article today in the Sydney Morning Herald debunking one of the main arguments of ID proponents, that the modern eye is just far too complex to have ‘evolved’.
http://news.smh.com.au/eye-ancestor-debunks-id-nonsense/20071213-1gu1.html
I’m new to damn interesting (which is a great site) and this was the first article that sparked enough interest to become a memeber and say my two cents =)
First and foremost, I don’t see the huge conflict between science and religion that so many people seem to have. In my eyes they go hand in hand extremely well. I’m a materials science engineer so I work with “science stuff” all the time. How could one possibly disprove the other? Couldn’t it almost be thought of as “divine” that the hydrogen atom only has one electron making life as we know it possible (water, etc)? Science supports religion and vice versa. I’ve heard many people saying that science ( and therefore evolution and other hotly debated subjects) can not be true because it’s not stated that way in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God. I have many issues with this. I completely believe that the Bible is the word of God and that it is important in teaching who God is. But, the Bible is NOT literal! It was not written to be literally understood. The best example is it saying God created the world in seven days. I don’t think this literally translates to seven rotations of the earth! But at the same time this is not saying that God did not create the world (including our universe) and it somehow sprung into excistence and that there is nothing divine about our excistence as a people. So, in summary, science is just another way we humans have to glorify and understand the beauty and wonder of the place we live in. Just as religion does.
But I digress from the subject of teaching ID in schools. Personally, I don’t think they should be teaching this view solely. I think that schools should teach all the veiws of science. From creationism to evolution to ID. As others have said, it is a schools job to be an objective learning source. This was how I was taught and I don’t think I turned out all that screwed up ;)
Of course, maybe it would be wise to leave out the idea that there is a giant unseen plate of spaghetti influencing our world and answering our prayers each night. haha.
Ok I came across this website while I was researching on the WOW! Signal. I found very interesting the debate Between Berkana and Jason.
I personally was ignorant about the existence of and actual “theory” or whatever you want to call Intelligent Design, but my personal beliefs always led me to think about something similar.
Its clear that religion is the easy way to explain things out, but it’s also clear that its a story that has been told by ages, warped and modified to fit personal and collective interests (such as money), that’s why I personally prefer to believe in my own conclusions. If I have to believe in something, I prefer to believe in something invented by me, rather than by others. Sounds crazy, but to me it’s a bit more crazy to believe on a book that has been the best seller of all times, and even more crazy not only believing, but also contribute on the growth of the oldest and most successful enterprise ever made, with offices in every single town of the earth (you know which one I’m talking about… that one that owns a little country wrapped in gold). It’s just too commercial for me.
Anyways, talking about ID, I think it’s totally possible. In fact, although that human has not created artificial life yet, we are not too far from interfering in human evolution by using genetic manipulation. Aside from that, there are very intelligent computers and robots already made. If we put that together, we are talking about a new age Frankenstein. Now, what about if the so called Intelligent Designer was one of us in a very evolved state?
Remember that we are still in diapers.
I just wish people could leave their “God”‘s out of stuff.
Teach kids stuff relevant.
You don’t need “religion” to have morals or to live an empathetic, altruistic, loving life. Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Pastafarians do not decide whether a kid lives to a certain moral code. Society does. There are plenty of caring, loving Athiests out there bringing up perfectly well adjusted kids.
Keep that sh&t out of school.
Why??? It’s no less ridiculous or far fetched sounding than any other religion I’ve heard of.
“Oh no, not again!” Many scientistist have wondered what the petunia meant…..
Broccolli…
Yes, every possible outcome is very unlikely (when speaking from purely a numbers perspective).
However, we’re NOT. What many people’s brand of BigBang/Evolution wants us to swallow is that a random set of atoms grouped together which formed some kind of entity that is self aware and self propagating.
We’re not talking coin tossse. Chemical interactions, molecular structures, etc all play within observable rules.
Random chaos will NEVER produce life. Organized development is the only answer.
You say Religion Cannot be proven with statements like this:
“You cannot prove that ‘God did it’ so its not a valid arguement.”
To which the response is “You cannot prove that God didn’t do it.”
Your canned response is “The burden of proof is on you to proove that your ‘God’ did it.”
Lets change the question around.
I say “You cannot prove that the universe spontaneously created it self.”
you say “You cannot prove that it didn’t!”
I say “The burden of proof is on you.”
…and then you cannot prove it…and you never will. Our tools and measuring instruments can only tell us what we observe. Forget understanding the why (which is what religion is answering). The deeper we get, we can make nice equations to write down what we have observed. But science never arrives at “WHY” it works.
The problem is that we are IN this universe that supposedly created itself via some random act/explosion a billion years ago. Can we see beyond the point of creation? Now you think you can accurately measure the age of something over a span of Trillions of Lightyears old ACCURATELY. Do I need to point out the number of times science has proven itself wrong? “Oh, but that’s the beauty of science….once a better understanding comes along then we all gain!” You cry with glee!
-in the mean time, you think you have enough evidence to make the idea of “creation” totally invalid. Well, I’m sorry. You don’t have that kind of evidence. I don’t however, advocate teaching ID in school. Don’t teach religion at all. Just tell it like it is.
“Through careful observation and testing, patterns have emerged that supports the theory that all life on earth has randomly evolved from a single source. A single source which we cannot replicate or identify.”
“There is also a theory presented by others who believe the Theory that the genetic diversity we see is the result of an intelligent being creating/organizing that life which results in the same exact observations we have seen except we want to use those observations to support our theory so we didn’t want to let them use the same observations for theirs cause we found it first and we don’t like to share or say anything that might support their viewpoint. Furthermore! Their theory is unprovable and has gaps in it so it has to be wrong. Don’t worry about evolution being unprovable and having gaps. Those pitfalls in logic only apply when trying to refute those religious nutjobs.” -You
The real problem here is that you like your own theory so much that you have accepted all the “what if’s” and other possible theories as FACT and then endlessly pontificate off of that.
“If this scientifically plausible idea is right then that must be correct and hence we arrive at this conclusion – Never mind the series of conjectures and assumptions I used to get here.”
I’m sorry, but that argument is REALLY weak. If you’re missing points and draw a straight line between what you have, you could describe a sine wave with a line. You’re missing data, so what?
Here is what you have said in a nutshell “We don’t have all the data or proof to prove our theory..but we have enough to make me feel good about it! So what?! It also happens to be enough (despite my admissions of lack of proof) to point out that you stink. And Also I hate your mother. Which means that you better not present your Idea or I’ll talk bad about you on anonymous bulletin boards.”
Sorry for the delving into the realm of immature…but these arguements are so childish.
Um…how about the Theory of Creation? Just because you don’t like the idea doesn’t make it false. Funny thing is that Evolution and Creation don’t even have to argue.
Did you just say:
“The ‘large number of scientists who disagree with evolution’ nonsense is just a fabrication. Are there scientists who don’t accept evolution? Sure.”
Um. Ok. Theres a difference between disagreeing and not accepting? So..they couldn’t possibley no accept it BECAUSE they disagree? Nope…sounds like a fabrication to me!
If everything was created by someone, then what we observe (assuming our observations are accurate) would be HOW that person did it. End of the line.
If everything was NOT created by someone then what we observe is the random act of a vast universe.
You have no better proof of one over the other. Therefore, leave BOTH off the books as far as school is concerned.
Evolution doesn’t TELL us anything. Evolution is a theory that tries to make a coherent thought out of “millions” of years of history as told by our findings (so far) and observations (accurate or not) and attempts to fill in the missing pieces with conjecture and theory.
There are plenty of people who feel that evolution is an ATTEMPT at proving that life spontaneously started in a pool of goo many millennia ago.
The OTHER theory you mention is the “big bang” which is also a theory based on theories and other unobserved theoretical physics which, while it doesn’t implicitly state, certainly implies that God had nothing to do with the universe.
The anti theists will always find these things and tweak them to their view. You could say the same of theists. :D
Um, anything YOU do in a petri dish is Intelligent Design…woops. Unless you are not intelligent? Perhaps you feel that the random unobserved changes constitute true proof of micro evolution? (and if micro evolution is true, so is the macro iteration of such)
What you said “No intelligent design modification has succeeded…it hasn’t been tried.”
Cough cough.
Good job genius. We will now attempt to prove it doesn’t work by never trying!
My advice.
Quit arguing about stupid crap.
Theres no point in taking sides as if you know everything. We don’t. Get off your high horse and admit it. Repeat after me “we don’t know everything!”
Feel better? Great.
1)quit touting Evolution/Big bang as anti theism proof.
2)quit touting Religion as proof that science is wrong.
Now go your separate ways and learn and grow.
The END.
as always religion vs science breeds great emotionally charged debate!
Heeheehee!!!
I’m a devout pastafarian, and you can tell, as soon as they hit “submit”, when people have not given any time at all to reading about our beliefs.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not about “we’re right and you’re wrong”. It does not attack other religions. All we want is the right to exist alongside them without fear of judgement. If you actually read the open letter, our most holy work of literature, what it in fact states is Yes, Kansas Educational Board, you SHOULD teach the theories of intelligent desing in schools alongside evolution. All of them. Not just the Christian one. Ours too, and all the others, because they are all just as unprovable as each other.
And we have charts and diagrams and stuff to prove it too!
Okay, seriously now. I have no problem with my children being taught about religion in a religious studies class at school, as long as all religions, or at least the major ones around the world, are given equal time and none is taught as being hard fact over the others. I just don’t like the idea of some devout church going teacher ramming their own beliefs into my children’s heads and not giving them a chance to decide what they believe for themselves.
That’s all FSMism is about. Giving everyone the right to believe what they want without fear of judgement or predjudice.
So to all of you sitting there defending your own beliefs against the heresy of FSMism, we’re not attacking you! Perhaps if you’d actually read the website, you might get a bit of a laugh too.
And I typoed. Design, not desing
Evolution does not rule out the possibility of there being a creator, it merely restricts the role him/her/it has played since the process of creation (if at all there was such a thing in the first place). Believe in God if you must. Personally, I think that proponents of ID are like 6 year old kids who don’t really care where the piece of candy they are eating came from, and aren’t interested in learning why it is important that they share it. Hitler, too, was very convinced of the veracity of his warped views.
Personally I am a Devout Pastafarian, not eating pasta in any cases unless forced to. Even then eating it is a last resort and must be done with a very formal and strict apologetive prayer. One may see a connection between some grand religion and the common mans Pastafarianism.
http://timcooley.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/christian-logic.jpg
For those too lazy to look at it I will explain it here:
P:”I have a baseball”
D:”Prove it”
P shows his baseball to D.
D:”Oh. Youre right”
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
P:”I have a baseball”
D:”Prove it.”
P:”YOU CANT PROVE I DONT HAVE A BASEBALL!!!”
I will leave it to you to decide what is right. I have spent many hours in class and even in my off-time, wondering about is there really a force out there. Call it aliens, god or even Garfunkel, there is something. We cant be alone in here.Pastafarianism offers a reasonable explanation without asking too much of me.
Natural selection you ask? Or human interference? A new type of fish appears. Lets say it is a shark that has a lazer cannon for its left eye. It kills the regular sharks and takes over theyre habitat. Natural selection? Sure. A new type of person appears. Lets say it is a facist Nazi. It kills of a few million Jews. Natural selection? In a sense, yes. What differentiates us from the animalkind is that we change our surroundings to suit us, and have a very strong survival instinct. Did the others fish stop the lazer-shark from killing off everyone? No. Did the humans stop Adolf? Yes. There is in my opinion the prime reason why we are different from a panda. We may kill the planet, we may extinct a few species but in the end is that nothing but natural selection? Its sad, but its natural selection. Only when we can learn to live in synthesis with the world, have we truly rosen above animals.
And thats what Pastafarianism is about. Natural selection kicked you out of the game? Tough luck. Come work in the stripper factory. Did you make the Earth explode? Have a dip in the beer volcano. But you ate pasta? No dice.