The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

Chips_ & NotReady,

Lets try to focus on what the argument is in a simple and abstract way. Let say I have a theory that says that organism evolve from one another, thus a1 turns into a2 which turns into a3..etc. until a100 (the current end of this chain). Now the same thing is theorised to happen for b1 to b100 and c1 to c100 etc,... For some sequences there is strong evidence (Fossil record is complete say for b3,b4,b7 and for e40,e41 to e49, etc..) and the mechanism can be experienced, for a few links at least, in laboratories conditions with fast reproducing organisms. We have now a mechanism and a theory. The theory says that there are 100 intermediate steps between a1 and a100 (it's only a theory) there are records of a1, a11, a21, a31, a41, a51.. to a 91 and a100). There are big gaps, in fact only 10% of the theory is evidenced. But we know that the mechanism is possible for a few links in other classifications. Now, over the next 100 years, we discover many other new fossils, in the correct sequence of geological layers that start confirming what were up till now gaps. We know have 90% of the gaps covered, only for 10% have we found no evidence yet. I would suspect that the gaps left out in no way weaken the validity of the theory.

The theory effectively has been and is being tested...

Note also that we have said nothing about god or lack of god. We haven't even addressed what happen before a1 or before the big bang. We are not concerned with that since we have no way of testing whatever theory we may have. It is outside the realm of science, and quite rightly so.

Now what ID supporters would like to do, is to insinuate the concept of god as an agent for the gaps. This is not science, it cannot be proven and belongs to a completely different domain than science does, similarly to astrology or many other things.

It is totally disingenuous to say that ID is not a religious/political issue. It is a calculated effort at undermining the foundation of what has been the advancement of mankind, science. It is the irrational sphere of mankind trying to usurp the authority of the rational. It should be fought and opposed with all possible vigour to ensure we don't regress to the dark ages of humanity or even worse.

Teach ID wherever, but not in, or as science. That is the point. Science stays out of the way of god/no god issue and religion stays well out of science. Regarding an atheist position rationale. They do exists also. My rejection of the god concept rests in morality and logic issues, not in science. Science makes my postion easier by at least not contradicting it.

I hope this clarifies the argument that I have and explain my criticism of Mr Behe et al... I think they are obscurantists.

Regarding where to teach ID, again, if not in religious and bible classes, I don't know, and I don't care as long as it is not in science.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We had a long thread on this idea started by DS some time ago. Stop teaching atheistic evolution, i.e. evolution by chance, and you might find most Christians won't complain too much about the teaching of real biology.


[/ QUOTE ]
Does this point to the reality behind the ID argument? Its not that IDers believe ID is science but they want to prevent evolution being taught as science. ID is a tactic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Hey Chez and NotReady, I think that I'm begining to argee with NotReady on this. It appears that scientists believe that they have disproven God by evolution and the Big Bang adn the emergance of life. They make statements that these things randomly occured. Science wishes to continue the war that religion started with it. Partaking in this war is the reason why ID is finding an ear in the education community. ID is not ready as a theory to be taught in schools, but since the scientific community will not stop attacking religion, it is nessesary to include a lacking theory, to keep the scientists from an early victory over religion. If we wish to know more about the "random" causes of life and the universe, ID is good for keeping that question current.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've no truck with any scientist who claims to have disproven god.

I've also no interest in a war. ID may be a very good tactic, my interests are discovering whether or not it is a tactic or a genuine argument and then doing my best to expose it or argue it on its merits.

chez

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be the case that there is a designer but no-one who has has made even the most cursory study of evolution could honestly argue that complexity is evidence of a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nails must fear you; you just hit one on the head.

[college kid]

Good post.

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop teaching atheistic evolution, i.e. evolution by chance, and you might find most Christians won't complain too much about the teaching of real biology.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we just abandon the scientific method and ask imaginary fairies how the world works?

Evolution IS science--it is a theory brought about by the continued use of the scientific method, which makes it a science. ID is at the very least NOT science as it does not utilize the scientific method--except in rare cases which either have failed or produced results that can be explained by many means other than an intelligent agent.

That's why it should not be taught in the classroom. It is not science.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I've no truck with any scientist who claims to have disproven god.

I've also no interest in a war. ID may be a very good tactic, my interests are discovering whether or not it is a tactic or a genuine argument and then doing my best to expose it or argue it on its merits.

[/ QUOTE ] Chez, I believe it's nature is more political than scientifical. From looking over the testimony given by Beil?, can't remember who exaclty, There is a huge interest on the probable outcomes of getting ID taught, and not so much on wether ID is actualy correct, or actualy science. What IDers really want is probably much more malicious, and against separation of church and state. ID is the political outcome of a geniune arguement. So yeah it's a tactic.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've no truck with any scientist who claims to have disproven god.

I've also no interest in a war. ID may be a very good tactic, my interests are discovering whether or not it is a tactic or a genuine argument and then doing my best to expose it or argue it on its merits.

[/ QUOTE ] Chez, I believe it's nature is more political than scientifical. From looking over the testimony given by Beil?, can't remember who exaclty, There is a huge interest on the probable outcomes of getting ID taught, and not so much on wether ID is actualy correct, or actualy science. What IDers really want is probably much more malicious, and against separation of church and state. ID is the political outcome of a geniune arguement. So yeah it's a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]After reading what I wrote I'm back to being agaisnt ID. I'll just say it's to close to call from my view, and exit stage left.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

...........
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth


Luckily Merriam-Webster's agre es with me.


[/ QUOTE ]
2 doesn't. An axiom is a postulate, which means an assumption, which you said an axiom isn't in another post.

Calling something self-evident or an axiom is simply a logical device, the identification of a presupposition for which no proof is offered, or for which proof has already been given. Since order in the universe can't be proved empirically, it can only be an assumption. Simply stating that it is self-evident doesn't make it true, it supplies the presupposition upon which other proofs are based.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does this point to the reality behind the ID argument? Its not that IDers believe ID is science but they want to prevent evolution being taught as science. ID is a tactic.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for all IDers. Actually, I'm not one myself in that I'm not a scientist, though I do believe in ID. I have no objection to teaching biology, etc., that is established as science. What CAN'T be established by science is that evolution occurred by chance.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why isn't it possible to be neutral based on observable evidence?


[/ QUOTE ]

From a Scriputural viewpoint I don't believe anyone is truly neutral. It's possible to represent neutrality in communication and I may not be able to emprically show that someone has said or done something that proves he isn't neutral. It's a religious position. But whether you are neutral or not isn't based on evidence - neutrality concerns the heart attitude.

[ QUOTE ]

I rarely read anything you write which can be backed up by observable evidence or accurate predictions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to be a scientist.

[ QUOTE ]

You must place tremendous amounts of faith in your non-scientific/non-observable sources


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I've never tried to represent otherwise. I believe that my faith positions have evidence though. It isn't blind faith or a leap in the dark. You basically admit as much yourself. As to accurate predictions, what the Bible does is give an explanation of human nature, history and God that makes sense. No other worldview does this. Strong evidence.