Re:Picking and choosing...
on
God Mode
·
· Score: 1
A true Christian would say "Such is the will of god. I will forgive them for their sins and I shall be rewarded in the afterlife by the grace of god and my faith no matter what anyone does to me".
I have to disagree, an informed Christian would not say "Such is the will of god" about anything evil that happens. Christians believe God allows bad things but it is never his will that they happen. Evil is an unfortunate result of when man uses his free will in rebellion against God's perfect Will.
To decide if ID is anti-science we need define anti-science. I assume it means something that is against science. I think you are right that ID is non-science, it's not science, it's the absence of science. ID simply says, "this can not come about naturally it had to be designed by an 'Intelligence'." It is the explanation of something science can't explain. What is it doing in science class then? Well I think it is only fair when the students reach this point it should be talked about, not a whole chapter, just a chance to discusses the problem. People don't throw a fit when the ray/wave properties of light are discussed, or the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics, they simply trust that the problem will be reconciled some day. So it should be, I think, with ID.
If ID is proven wrong, and it is shown that things like irreducibly complex structures can arise naturally it will strengthen science. Nothing like a good controversy to speed up research. ID is hitting a nerve in the Theory of Evolution, a problem that has been around since Darwin founded it. If ID is made a classroom standard there will probably be a rush to disprove it, and if it is disproved, then it fills in a hole that needs to be filled for macro-evolution to become a scientific law. If it can't disprove, well there goes some 150 years of research, but at least we have a lot of knowledge about how things can't arise naturally. So I think allowing ID in schools is possibly the best way to resolve this conflict. Ignoring the issue, or denying it, won't get evolutionists anywhere, if they want public support they are going to have to show the public real evidence of why ID is wrong.
You are right about God being "unscientific"(the Christian God at least). God is unscientific because science deals with nature, and God is supernatural. God is "outside" of nature, just like an author is outside a the book he writes. The author writes the story but the characters in the story are(in most books) unaware of his influence. Science, like the charaters in the book, can't leave the pages to meet the Author. It only deals with nature and can't disprove God. It can imply his existence though, for example the First Cause and the human soul. God can prove himself, however, having created nature he can intervene, creating supernatural events. This leads to the one test I can think of to disprove God, and that is the Bible. The Christian God is the best candidate for the true God that we know of. The holy book of Christianity reveals this God to us. And since it claims to be inspired by God, therefore any prediction given by God, in it must come true. So if you could find one prophecy, spoken in Gods name, referring to a specific historical event, that has not come true, this would disprove the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Unfortunately for it's critics, the Bible has had a 100% fulfilled prophecy record so far. I really can't think of any way to disprove the existence of a god, because disproving the Bible only disproves the God of Christianity. And if he is disproven, then there might be some other god out there who never revealed himself and can't be disproven.
So the question remains, is ID anti-science? The answer is no. ID teaches a Designer who designed living things. As you point out, the Designer had to be a God or Creator, no other being could have so much power. But if the Creator created everything, including science, then how could ID, which upholds the Creator, be against science? It's a rhetorical question.
By the way, I liked your explanation of the scientific method.
Why is Intelligent Design always portrayed as anti-science? I have heard numerous comments like this. Just because you reject a portion of science doesn't mean that you reject the entire discipline. You can have a successful scientific career while believing in ID(though maybe not in fields dominated by evolutionary thought). This issue would be moot if the evidence for "macro" evolution was so conclusive that the ID-believing scientists gave up the cause. The article rightly points out that ID proponents do not call themselves anti-science, in fact, I think that is controversy is in the best interest of science. Out of the ashes of this conflict one of these theories will rise victorious. And science will not be set back, even if IDists win. In any case, ID has little to do with the lack of science students in the US. I think the problem lies with our cultural disinterest.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree, an informed Christian would not say "Such is the will of god" about anything evil that happens. Christians believe God allows bad things but it is never his will that they happen. Evil is an unfortunate result of when man uses his free will in rebellion against God's perfect Will.
If ID is proven wrong, and it is shown that things like irreducibly complex structures can arise naturally it will strengthen science. Nothing like a good controversy to speed up research. ID is hitting a nerve in the Theory of Evolution, a problem that has been around since Darwin founded it. If ID is made a classroom standard there will probably be a rush to disprove it, and if it is disproved, then it fills in a hole that needs to be filled for macro-evolution to become a scientific law. If it can't disprove, well there goes some 150 years of research, but at least we have a lot of knowledge about how things can't arise naturally. So I think allowing ID in schools is possibly the best way to resolve this conflict. Ignoring the issue, or denying it, won't get evolutionists anywhere, if they want public support they are going to have to show the public real evidence of why ID is wrong.
You are right about God being "unscientific"(the Christian God at least). God is unscientific because science deals with nature, and God is supernatural. God is "outside" of nature, just like an author is outside a the book he writes. The author writes the story but the characters in the story are(in most books) unaware of his influence. Science, like the charaters in the book, can't leave the pages to meet the Author. It only deals with nature and can't disprove God. It can imply his existence though, for example the First Cause and the human soul. God can prove himself, however, having created nature he can intervene, creating supernatural events. This leads to the one test I can think of to disprove God, and that is the Bible. The Christian God is the best candidate for the true God that we know of. The holy book of Christianity reveals this God to us. And since it claims to be inspired by God, therefore any prediction given by God, in it must come true. So if you could find one prophecy, spoken in Gods name, referring to a specific historical event, that has not come true, this would disprove the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Unfortunately for it's critics, the Bible has had a 100% fulfilled prophecy record so far. I really can't think of any way to disprove the existence of a god, because disproving the Bible only disproves the God of Christianity. And if he is disproven, then there might be some other god out there who never revealed himself and can't be disproven.
So the question remains, is ID anti-science? The answer is no. ID teaches a Designer who designed living things. As you point out, the Designer had to be a God or Creator, no other being could have so much power. But if the Creator created everything, including science, then how could ID, which upholds the Creator, be against science? It's a rhetorical question.
By the way, I liked your explanation of the scientific method.
Why is Intelligent Design always portrayed as anti-science? I have heard numerous comments like this. Just because you reject a portion of science doesn't mean that you reject the entire discipline. You can have a successful scientific career while believing in ID(though maybe not in fields dominated by evolutionary thought). This issue would be moot if the evidence for "macro" evolution was so conclusive that the ID-believing scientists gave up the cause. The article rightly points out that ID proponents do not call themselves anti-science, in fact, I think that is controversy is in the best interest of science. Out of the ashes of this conflict one of these theories will rise victorious. And science will not be set back, even if IDists win. In any case, ID has little to do with the lack of science students in the US. I think the problem lies with our cultural disinterest.