Intelligent Design - A Question

[blackdiamond]

My wife and I were watching the movie Expelled with Ben Stein and it got me thinking.  When it comes to science there appears to be a push for Darwin's evolution which is strongly linked with an athiestic world view, but in politics it's still important to have Christian values.  Specifically, do you think a president would be elected that openly claimed to not believe in God?  Why the difference?

Ben Stein pushed one of the most outspoken evolutionary scientists in an interview and the guy basically admitted that our world could have been "seeded" by something unknown (i.e. think alien) but that intenty would have had to evolve from evolutionaly methods.  So given that he considers intelligent design a possibility for our world, why exclude it from science?  After all, we're learning about our world and not whatever it was that may have started our world.  It really seemed odd to me.  Have you ever heard the saying that it's elephants all the way down?

[46&2]

My wife and I were watching the movie Expelled with Ben Stein and it got me thinking.  When it comes to science there appears to be a push for Darwin's evolution which is strongly linked with an athiestic world view, but in politics it's still important to have Christian values.  Specifically, do you think a president would be elected that openly claimed to not believe in God?  Why the difference?

Well first off, I don't think its fair to say "strongly" linked with atheistic views, because I don't claim to be anything other than a believer in what I can see with my own eyes. I'm not an atheist, I am open to any ideas. I don't doubt there could be a God, or many, but at the same time I am extremely skeptical. That doesn't mean I cast it off as blasphemy though. I think you'd find a lot of people that don't believe in any religion would hesitate to label themselves an atheist. As for a president admiting to not beliving in God, I think it would be political suicide, because there are still a lot of religious people in this country. Its easier for a non-believer to vote for a Christian, that it would be for religious folk to vote for a non-believer or so it would make sense to me.

Ben Stein pushed one of the most outspoken evolutionary scientists in an interview and the guy basically admitted that our world could have been "seeded" by something unknown (i.e. think alien) but that intenty would have had to evolve from evolutionaly methods.  So given that he considers intelligent design a possibility for our world, why exclude it from science?  After all, we're learning about our world and not whatever it was that may have started our world.  It really seemed odd to me.  Have you ever heard the saying that it's elephants all the way down?

The reason intelligent design is excluded from science is because there is no proof. Pretty much every bit of "proof" from the ID camp fails to prove anything. In science, a theory is never proven, it can only be disproven. Theories are backed by facts that cannot be disproven. IE water freezes at 32 F or O C. If someone could make water freeze naturally at 75 degrees F it would shatter the theory. Obviously that won't happen though. Its always changing. I'm not sure what scientist he was talking to, but he should have mentioned that everything on earth, including life, IS inherently alien. I don't think he was necessarily agreeing that intelligent design was behind it, because life still had to evolve over billions of years. You can plant an apple seed and 30 years later have a huge apple tree, but were you designing it and perfecting it along the way?

It is now known that amino acids (building blocks for life) have been discovered in asteroids that have been recovered from recent impacts. If they are arriving now, surely they were arriving billions of years ago. You also have to open yourself to the idea that Earth was formed over billions of years from crap floating around in space. Kind of like the original "Pacific garbage ball"  . The process by which science agrees on how life has come to be on this planet is a very gradual process. One small step at a time, completely random.

There just isn't enough out there to make it credible enough for mainstream science. Until we have solid proof of aliens and them visiting us, its just another hypothesis. It doesn't correlate with intelligent design either, because from my understanding ID points to someone designing us, with evolution etc included in their plan. Life arriving here by chance (ie seeded) does not mean an entity created life here. If it did, there is zero proof of it yet. Until someone can find proof of it, it cannot be incorperated into science.

Ultimately even the smartest scientist in the world still doesn't know why there is life in the universe. All we know is that life is one complex puzzle. We slowly uncover new pieces of information that further our understanding.

I don't want to stomp on anyone's beliefs, but in order to understand science, you have to be willing to accept that religion might not be the answer. We are at our most scientifically advanced period of our species' existance (that we know of), and we have reached the breaking point between religion and science. In my opinion, science disproves most all of all religions, thats why I don't prescribe to any. If anything, I find it more believable that aliens came and religion formed based on those visits to primitive people. IE Gods descending from the heavens. Check out the History channel series "Ancient Aliens", on youtube. There are a lot of similarities between religions far and wide, and throughout time, that reference the same exact thing. There are aboriginal drawings in Australia that depict people wearing space suits that date back thousands of years. In the Mohave desert (believe its the Mohave) there are thousand year old native american paintings depicting close to the same thing as was found in caves on the other side of the world in Australia.

Do I believe aliens came and probed us a long time ago? Possibly. Until there is further proof I take it along with everything else I learn as possible, but not impossible either. I also think its entirely possible to be religious and believe in science. Might make it harder, but in my opinion the best approach to life is to take everything with a grain of salt. I accept anything as a possibility.

In my opinion, Intelligent Design is just beating around the bush trying to further prove the existance of God by incorperating bits and pieces of science into a more compatible scientific, religious type view. Perfectly fine, but like I said, they haven't been able to prove much besides cherry picking scientific information to fit their theory.

This is a touchy subject and hence why we have reached such a divide between science and religion. I don't intend to offend anyone with what I have said, its just my opinion based on studying various aspects of science my whole life. Who knows, maybe we are all just batteries and living a virtual life in the Matrix.  

[jrock]

Man, 46&2, you sure can type. Instead of typing it all out, I agree with you.

[blackdiamond]

I guess what I wrote about aliens wasn't intended to be as literal as it sounded.  I think the guy was suggesting similar to what you wrote about the basics for life arriving from somewhere else and evolving on earth from that point.

The issue is really with the origin of life.  Scientists have no idea beyond wild speculation as to how non-living matter became living matter.  The fact that there are many things know about such as, for example, the cell that is a complex arrangement of of micro machines working together does indicate a designer.  ID would be the conclusion from similar facts in any topic other than the origin of life.  Why should it be excluded from science when nobody has any proof that it isn't?

My biggest issue with science in general is that all findings are based on the paradigm of the scientist.  The entire scientific mindset is "billions of years" so the majority of the conclusions are based on that idea or they assume they did the test wrong.

There are certainly absolute facts in science such as gravity, but there is also a lot of science that is based on theory's that are based on evidence that is interpreted based on the current scientific paradigm.

Most people assume that ID is based solely on religion, but it actually isn't.  It's really directed at the origin of life that science has failed to figure out.

A true belief in evolution only essentially excludes God.  What role would a God serve in a worth that developed over billions of years by chance?

Both theorys can be looked at independly from religion and God.

[46&2]

The issue is really with the origin of life.  Scientists have no idea beyond wild speculation as to how non-living matter became living matter.  The fact that there are many things know about such as, for example, the cell that is a complex arrangement of of micro machines working together does indicate a designer.  ID would be the conclusion from similar facts in any topic other than the origin of life.  Why should it be excluded from science when nobody has any proof that it isn't?

I understand the complexity of chemical compounds and cells definitely seems so perfect it would appear to have been designed. But is this not just human beings, by our creative nature, looking to see our own need to build, tinker, and create on a grander scale? If indeed someone did design it, where did they come from and who designed them? Both trains of thought (ID vs random chance) are equally headache inducing. I can follow the ideas behind ID, but to me, pure random chance seems more plausible.

My biggest issue with science in general is that all findings are based on the paradigm of the scientist.  The entire scientific mindset is "billions of years" so the majority of the conclusions are based on that idea or they assume they did the test wrong.

Thats not entirely true, and frankly I could take your statement and replace science with religion, and scientist with believer and say the same thing about religion. The only difference is no one (that I know of) is working to test and figure out the workings of religion. Its not really that simple either, like I said, no one has been able to disprove carbon dating, so the information sticks. Religions as a whole take a basic set of information and accept it without fault, where as science is constantly evolving as new knowledge surfaces that could potentially have radical implications for science. Alfred Wegener for example first proposed the idea of continental drift and plate tectonics and was largely ridiculed. He died without knowing his idea would revolutionize science. It was not until the Navy undertook vast efforts after the discovery of sonar to map the entire ocean floor that the mid ocean ridges were discovered and plate tectonics became a vital component of not only evolutionary theory but our understanding of geography. Same thing happens today. For all I know, in 10 years a radical discovery could point to ID. However at this point, there is little substantial evidence to integrate it into current science.

There are certainly absolute facts in science such as gravity, but there is also a lot of science that is based on theory's that are based on evidence that is interpreted based on the current scientific paradigm.

Again you are looking at science from a biased and broad standpoint. Theories become theories because they cannot be disproven. Each piece of science builds on each other. Like plate tectonics and evolution. Darwin could not explain how such similar species could exist on the west coast of africa and the east coast of south america. Years later a completely different field of science filled in the puzzle piece. Scientists don't sit around making broad statements and calling it good. To put a piece of information out there as fact or truth takes years of research and extreme scrutiny from the scientific community to attain that status. Science also applies to everything. Many of us here on Marlin have the "science" of wheeling and building Toyotas down. Growing a garden, again, a simplistic form of science. If you breed dogs, or horses, or llamas, again, you are using science. To put it all together is a huge undertaking that has taken a hundred years and thousands of people to figure out.

Most people assume that ID is based solely on religion, but it actually isn't.  It's really directed at the origin of life that science has failed to figure out.

Yes, but the difference is that the ID camp has failed to provide substantial evidence for their claims, where as geology has made leaps and bounds in terms of discoveries about the age of the earth and how it works, and they have actual proof.

A true belief in evolution only essentially excludes God.  What role would a God serve in a worth that developed over billions of years by chance?

Maybe he just wanted to sit back and see what happened. If anything, God is the ultimate scientist.

Both theorys can be looked at independly from religion and God.

I fail to see how ID doesn't involve God, its looking to explain life via a creator. Isn't that God? Evolution doesn't necessarily exclude God, because maybe thats how he wanted it to work.

Why wouldn't God want us to evolve?

[blackdiamond]

Just two things to follow up and then I'd let it be.  I wasn't trying to really start a debate, just posting a thought that I had with a little context.

First, I won't deny that I look at science from an Creationist bias, but I don't see why that's a reason to exclude ID when the majority of scientists completely discount ID which means that they are biased to evolution.  Until someone can actually explain through science how life began (i.e. non-living matter becomes living matter) with someone other than speculation then either answer is just as good.

Second, if our world evolved from some matter that arrived on our planet from somewhere else in the universe then it's very likely that we wouldn't have the ability to know how it began through an evolutionary method.  The conditions from the land far far away could be very different from ours making it impossible for us to understand.  If this was the case, then the best explaination of how our world began might appear to be "ID/creation" in a sense because it didn't evolve from nothing from our perspective.