Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID

[David Sklansky]

I never said atheists are smart. I said smart people are atheists.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said atheists are smart. I said smart people are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Prince,

I know that. I was just trying to say that there certainly is no evidence of your main theory here on the forum. There are a few smart folk here. Some are atheists and some are believers. The proportion of smart atheist to smart believers in no way reflects the “real world” proportions. In the real world there seems to be many more smart atheists to the number of smart believers.

From our sample of smart folk here, nothing I have read thus far leads me to conclude that the smart atheists have anything over on the smart believer. I do not see much evidence of what one might expect from the smart atheist: a more objective and logical approach to decision making relative to their beliefs/non beliefs.

From the data I have observed on the forum, I must conclude that the large percentage of smart atheists in the real world is an anomaly. Either that or their atheism stems from reasons other than their intelligence.
Perhaps a third reason is this: the smart believers are simply not counted when the census is taken of how many smart folk there are. The ratios are therefore skewed.

For whatever reason the proportions are the way they are recorded in the real world, this forum seems to confirm one thing to me: it doesn’t take a genius meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.

RJT

BluffThis,

I'm interested in your position on a few things quoted in the article:

[ QUOTE ]
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]
So did we get from monkeys to humans entirely by natural processes, or has God interfered with physical processes to direct it? It's one or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
"He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

[/ QUOTE ]
Please decipher this statement for me. He <font color="green">allows</font> and <font color="blue">participates</font> but doesn't <font color="red">intervene</font>??

[ QUOTE ]
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order."

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm?

[ QUOTE ]
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, at least it's clear now. It's nice that one religion has got it right.

In my view the current state of Evolution Theory suffers from a serious problem. Anything that challenges not only the general idea of evolution but many of the specifics is labelled "unscientific". I think the general idea of evolution theory - that people evolved from lower forms of life is likely correct. I also think that teaching a literal intepretation of Genesis is not something to be done in the science class.
But it is not unscientific to look at a complex structure such as the eye and try to see if it is reasonable to think that it evolved or was designed. That's a thought process that students should go through. Teachers of Evolution should be able to defend their position on this subject. In my experience in Evolution classes this thought process was not explored properly at all.
I go further though, becauseI happen to believe that the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is probably substantially wrong. I've heard some great challenges to it on the basis of experimental findings and mathematics. And these challenges come from what looks to me like a growing group of people who are not pushing religion. I think the fear from a lot of people is that a debate over the particulars of evolution will lead to a religious crusade. So for this reason a lot of the refinement to the theory that I think should have happened has not made it to the classrooms.
I'm troubled by the thinking that I see in evolution classes, where ideas are presented as fact and not seriously proven. In high school and college I challenged recapitulation theory, the molecular clock hypothesis and some of the fossil evidence for human evolution that was presented as factual. Students I think need to be able to tell the difference between facts and theories.
So I think its healthy for evolution to have to defend some of their ideas vs "intelligent design". In my mind that is the one of the basic ideas of the theory of evolution - to explain why some things might look as though they are designed but were not. The book of Genesis vs evolution is the inappropriate context for the science class.
I think its nuts to define "intelligent design" as only a religious subject and something science can never consider. It gives scientists a pass on seriously proving a theory in the classroom that is supposed to explain why intelligent design is not the answer.
Having said that I think we still have to be careful on what the components of inclusion of "intelligent design" in a course curriculum really means. The whole class can't be a debate and the theory of evolution needs to be taught
thoroughly because it is very important to understand. I just think Evolution theory as presented in high school/college introductory classes needs some serious house cleaning. It's got some problems with data integrity and scientific method in it's presentation.

Hiya Chips,

A very long and very well thought out post. Unfortunately it is only a re-hash of the same old arguments. The eye is a very good example. Any investigation will show you that there are indeed problems with the eye and its design, the macula being the most obvious one, and it is definitely a by-product of an evolutionary process. I have mentionned that before on another post and will say no more about it. Good open minded investigation rather than blind faith will convince you.

Secondly, your argument, altough well formulated, implies that ID is science, it is not! The fact that some scientists support it doesn't make it science. Many scientists support astrology, or hypnosis past life regression, or whatever lunatic theory. Should we present all those and more as well in classes?

We have unfortunately, and it has some consequences, gone so far in knowledge that no one can any more claim encyclopedic knowledge of science. Therefore we have to rely on specialisation, even for what is culturally transmitted. It may the first time that we have to make those choices but it becomes much more important not to muddy the waters in an unscientific, if not uneducated, way.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So did we get from monkeys to humans entirely by natural processes, or has God interfered with physical processes to direct it? It's one or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or both. Occasional interventions. And since God has foreknowledge, He knew what the natural process of evolution would bring about and what it might not.

Your monkey to human line indicates you don't believe in evolution I take it. Both monkeys and humans descend from common primate anscestors. And the infusion of a soul in humans is strictly by God.

[ QUOTE ]
Please decipher this statement for me. He allows and participates but doesn't intervene??

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote said "continually". Thus occasional interventions are part of what he meant. And God's permissive will allows all that is not the result of a specific "interference".

What the Holy Father meant was that evolution is not the either/or situation you are trying to make it to be in order to make your point. Thus a guided evolution, in a process mosly but not totally the result of normal evolutionary processes is what he is stating is the case. And Cardinal
Schoenborn's opinions are entirely his own.

Thank you for clarifying, you have a very self consistent position. But is it correct?

BTW this is OOO, I was banned a while ago and had to make a new username.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for clarifying, you have a very self consistent position. But is it correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

My consistency makes it far more likely that it is. So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms, that is, how far-fetched they are, and on what is the price for being incorrect either way.

[ QUOTE ]
My consistency makes it far more likely that it is [correct]. So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms, that is, how far-fetched they are

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Internal consistency has nothing to do with whether your beliefs accurately reflect reality. See, for example, Islam. Or your local asylum.

[ QUOTE ]
and on what is the price for being incorrect either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. The consequences of being wrong have no bearing on whether you are, in fact, correct. The consequences of not following Islam are dire. Is this an argument for the correctness of Islam?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
My consistency makes it far more likely that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, most paranoids are extremely consistent within their delusions. This is only one example.



[ QUOTE ]
So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms

[/ QUOTE ]

What does evidence of any kind have to do with your or anybody's axioms?

Also, it seems like you are doing right here on this thread quite the opposite of what that guy from the Vatican suggested, i.e, you are clearly mixing "intelligent design" and science with your talk about "occasional interventions". You are basically creating your own version of "intelligent design", which is very similar in essence to the original one. There's no meaning to the scientific theory of evolution if you add "occasional intervention by god" to it. It's now a religious "explanation" of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]