142: In His Name We Pray, Ramen

[Uszi]

I'm afraid you have fallen prey to the ID campaign of misinformation Though they would deny it, ID was designed to be as close to creationism as legally possible. While it may not use the word "god" it was in fact just a repackaging of creationist ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandas_And_People
Instead of "god" they describe an "outside force", which just happens to be a sentient force capable of directing evolution across the history of life on earth. Gee how many entities can we think of who can do that?

I haven't fallen prey to shit. It's true that the old, now dead, campaign to push ID in public schools was mainly supported by creationists. It's also true that Pandas And People is a rewrite of a creationist work.

It is not true, however, that ID advocates don't ask some serious questions of evolution. I resent that you assume that I've fallen prey to a mass marketed campaign because I seriously considered some objections.

Have you heard, for example of these critiques:
Evolutionists follow a Doctrine of Onthological Naturalism
While an EYE might evolve, how could something like cilia evolve?
What about complex protein cascades?

Let me reiterate that I don't consider the two lines of though equal, and I don't sympathize much with ID advocates.

But I do respect the differences between someone who advocates ID and someone who advocates YEC.

The idea that it is backed by scientific evidence is also a lie. There have been no peer-reviewed studies supporting ID, and it's really not even testable as a theory, since the intervention of an "outside force" is not reproducible in the lab (as the theory was designed to be).

I'll agree there. Is less of a theory and more of a categorized list of complaints against evolution. But a decent reply to all of those questions would be the "Onthological Naturalism" Argument.

So, for #1, it's crap because of radiometric dating (actually not carbon dating since it is too short term, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Further_discoveries they use Argon and uranium dating).

Creationism, not ID.

#2 Really doesn't sound too different from ID, unless this is the "evolution is god's way of generating life" idea, which is still stupid to me, but ok. On a related note you wouldn't get your paycheck this week if FSM didn't let it happen.

Saying that life evolved would be an enourmous, unforgivable concession for a creationist. In that since they are very different. And while the idea may seem stupid to you, many people reconcile their faith in God with the seeming near-proof of evolution by looking at it in just the way you described.

#3 ID doesn't raise interesting SCIENTIFIC questions, since they don't meet the definition of a scientific hypothesis, which includes that it be testable and disprovable.

No, you don't NEED to have an alternative hypothesis to generate questions. And it does ask some interesting questions. Most of the modern, interesting questions, however, now deal with micro-biology and the world of molecules.



Let me, please, reiterate however that all of the views expressed above are more Devil's Advocate than anything else at all. I don't believe in ID in the least. The main problem I have with ID is that, sure, it's fine for you to believe what you want on your own time, but its not useful in a practical way to invoke the name of the creator when you bump into a hard ship on the road. Evolution is better, then, because if forces you to try and explain in a naturalistic way the problems you encounter.

Let me also reiterate that the article is a gross oversimplification of the debate. I am glad there are several people here who agree with me.

 

[oneplus999]

I'm afraid you have fallen prey to the ID campaign of misinformation Though they would deny it, ID was designed to be as close to creationism as legally possible. While it may not use the word "god" it was in fact just a repackaging of creationist ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandas_And_People
Instead of "god" they describe an "outside force", which just happens to be a sentient force capable of directing evolution across the history of life on earth. Gee how many entities can we think of who can do that?

I haven't fallen prey to shit. It's true that the old, now dead, campaign to push ID in public schools was mainly supported by creationists. It's also true that Pandas And People is a rewrite of a creationist work.

Older quote:

there are actually a fair deal of respectable scientific minds that do as well

The lie to which I referred is the idea that there are serious scientific minds behind ID, which you claimed in a previous post. I don't know why you think this campaign is dead when the movie Expelled just came out. Basically they conned prominent scientists into explaining some of the unproven hypotheses of abiogenesis, and to talk about some of the areas where evolution hasn't yet answered every single question in the evolution of every thing that has ever lived on earth, or to mention that it is, with some imagination, feasible for an alien race to have started life on our planet, and then they say, SEE SEE HE BELIEVES IN ID! Write his name down on our list of ID supporters! In reality ID has no peer reviewed scientific papers.

It is not true, however, that ID advocates don't ask some serious questions of evolution. I resent that you assume that I've fallen prey to a mass marketed campaign because I seriously considered some objections.

Have you heard, for example of these critiques:
Evolutionists follow a Doctrine of Onthological Naturalism
While an EYE might evolve, how could something like cilia evolve?
What about complex protein cascades?

Let me reiterate that I don't consider the two lines of though equal, and I don't sympathize much with ID advocates.

These are questions that can easily be raised outside of ID. I have no problem with a biology class that says, "and here are a list of evolutionary events that have not yet been explained, and may never be", I do have a problem with a class that says "and so there must be some unobservable outside force that did it *COUGH*GOD*COUGH*".

 

[Copter400]

This is ridiculous. It is past time we reject false idols and religions in favor of a deeper understanding of the true nature of the Force.

I agree, Jedi Master Archon.

 

[Jordan Deam]

There is only one true prophet, and his name is J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, the greatest salesman to ever live. Convert today ... it only costs $30!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius

"Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE your money back!"

 

[Jacques 2]

I'm afraid you have fallen prey to the ID campaign of misinformation Though they would deny it, ID was designed to be as close to creationism as legally possible. While it may not use the word "god" it was in fact just a repackaging of creationist ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandas_And_People
Instead of "god" they describe an "outside force", which just happens to be a sentient force capable of directing evolution across the history of life on earth. Gee how many entities can we think of who can do that?

I haven't fallen prey to shit. It's true that the old, now dead, campaign to push ID in public schools was mainly supported by creationists. It's also true that Pandas And People is a rewrite of a creationist work.

Older quote:

there are actually a fair deal of respectable scientific minds that do as well

The lie to which I referred is the idea that there are serious scientific minds behind ID, which you claimed in a previous post. I don't know why you think this campaign is dead when the movie Expelled just came out. Basically they conned prominent scientists into explaining some of the unproven hypotheses of abiogenesis, and to talk about some of the areas where evolution hasn't yet answered every single question in the evolution of every thing that has ever lived on earth, or to mention that it is, with some imagination, feasible for an alien race to have started life on our planet, and then they say, SEE SEE HE BELIEVES IN ID! Write his name down on our list of ID supporters! In reality ID has no peer reviewed scientific papers.

It is not true, however, that ID advocates don't ask some serious questions of evolution. I resent that you assume that I've fallen prey to a mass marketed campaign because I seriously considered some objections.

Have you heard, for example of these critiques:
Evolutionists follow a Doctrine of Onthological Naturalism
While an EYE might evolve, how could something like cilia evolve?
What about complex protein cascades?

Let me reiterate that I don't consider the two lines of though equal, and I don't sympathize much with ID advocates.

These are questions that can easily be raised outside of ID. I have no problem with a biology class that says, "and here are a list of evolutionary events that have not yet been explained, and may never be", I do have a problem with a class that says "and so there must be some unobservable outside force that did it *COUGH*GOD*COUGH*".

I honestly feel you've got a chip on your shoulder and that you're specifically targeting ID because it was pushed on you in the form of creationism and you didn't like being pushed. Thus you seem to have made the assumption that whoever believes in either concept has been successfully forced to believe something that can't be true.

Think about what you're saying, that no smart scientist can be a proponent of ID because you feel the concept is stupid. Are you a master's degree holding professor of biology or anything that would give you the authority to make an even potentially right claim about the standing of all intelligent scientists? The same argument you make against most pro-ID people also works against you, as does the argument that the idea is changed to meet the facts rather than the facts creating the idea as a whole.

On a side note, I believe animals have souls and I am vegetarian.

 

[BrainFromArous]

On a gaming based website I'd hardly expect to see such a clear anti-religious article, and hell, I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's entertaining.

It certainly is. And the more anti-religious stuff, the better - mocking religion being both a sign of intelligence and respect for the human species.

That said, what the fox (flying, of course) does this have to do with gaming? Are you trying to advance this under the cover of some kind of "hip," humor/skepticism complimentary to gaming "culture" or mindset or what have you?

Apart from hosting Yahtzee and the old, good PDF-format issues, what exactly is the purpose of The Escapist at this point?

 

[Pietato]

I believe animals have souls and I am vegetarian.

Well there's your problem right there. Not the soul part. The vegetarian part. Maybe the soul part. Probably the believe part, too, though.

The main problem I'm seeing here, having arrived a bit late to be truly entrenched on one side of this debate, is a lack of logical thought on both sides (Welcome to the internet, ha ha, it is a joke.) Rather than go out and gather sufficient sources, most of the arguments I'm seeing here throw out random facts with little to no backup. There was a bit about the rise of childhood diseases, a bit on the types of creationists/IDists, and another bit on texbooks not being able to keep up with good science.

In case you were wondering, I didn't bother with the quote command because I was just going to throw out examples. Enough about human failure. Onward to ideological inconsistency! Big words! I'm samrt!

Essentially, evolution says that species are the way they are now because a while ago, there was a spontaneous genetic mutation that was beneficial to one member of the species, that particular organism got busy with other organisms (Or itself, some animals can do that,) and passed its genetic material down through future generations. The key word here is spontaneous. Sometimes things just happen. Background radiation, botched cell replication, it doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't care why it happened, it just goes. It gives us a 'how'. That's how as in who, what, where, when, why, how. Not how as in stereotypical Native American greeting.

Intelligent Design, from what I can gather, states that something (God, Aliens, Spaghetti, whatever,) has shaped some particular aspect because that particular aspect of the universe couldn't be attributed to random happenings. It pretty much gives us a why.

If you want to mix the two, then you will, miraculously, get a how and a why for your what.

Really. I don't see how you can believe in ID without believing in evolution. Also, I'm doing my best to remain relatively impartial, so I'll not rant about picking and choosing parts of religious dogmas to accept. I'm sure Jesus was a nice guy. He has good lessons. I think saying he's the son of God might be a little egomaniacal, but that's enough on that.

On a side note, I don't care if animals have souls, because I only consume 100% processed meat that was raised in a concrete bunker designed specifically to not disrupt the outside environment. You can take your pesticide-spewing, combine harvesting, tofu burgers and their toll on the environment. I'm having steak.

Also, 900 years is absurd. Even for Connor MacLeod of the clan MacLeod. Yeah. Highlander reference. But I guess you'd have to be that old to build a boat big enough to hold two of every animal in the world. Or did Noah croak at 700?

 

[Sylocat]

Sorry, gang, but I'm a Haruhiist in good standing. ;-)

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm a vegetarian too; after all, you are what you eat, and cows eat vegetation, so cows are vegetables (once removed).

Eat your vegetables, kids.

-- Steve

(Actually, speaking technically, I guess given that line of reasoning I'm actually eating the Sun. Fear me.)

 

[oneplus999]

I honestly feel you've got a chip on your shoulder and that you're specifically targeting ID because it was pushed on you in the form of creationism and you didn't like being pushed. Thus you seem to have made the assumption that whoever believes in either concept has been successfully forced to believe something that can't be true.

The reason anyone who is not a fundamentalist christian and supports ID has been duped: LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF ID! I'm not basing this on a "chip", I'm basing it on the multiple ID/evolution debates I've watched and the information I have read/watched from multiple sources about ID. It is a modernized form of creationism. It has no scientific backing. People are trying to get it taught our schools. Anyone who thinks that this movement is "dead" just look at the movie Expelled, which just came out. I will now say this again: believe whatever junk you want to on your own time, that's fine by me (I have nothing personal against IDers just for being IDers), but people who push ID into the schools do so because they are afraid that evolution will lead people to atheism, or because they don't want to admit they are descended from a common ancestor to apes, or they think all morality will break down if we are actually just another soulless animal. They need to start over and come back when they have some evidence, and not just a god of the gaps.

Think about what you're saying, that no smart scientist can be a proponent of ID because you feel the concept is stupid. Are you a master's degree holding professor of biology or anything that would give you the authority to make an even potentially right claim about the standing of all intelligent scientists?

If it helps, I did my undergrad in biochemistry and I am going to be starting a PhD in either Structural and Computational Biology and Molecular Biophysics, or in Bioinformatics, so while not doing evolution specifically, one area of computational biology is about computing genetic phylogeny trees based on DNA sequences from different species, so they are a bit related.



And the funniest thing you said in that paragraph:

The same argument you make against most pro-ID people also works against you, as does the argument that the idea is changed to meet the facts rather than the facts creating the idea as a whole.

My argument: ID is a religiously based, non-scientific conjecture that is being pushed on children as an alternative to the well accepted scientific theory of evolution, based on the lack of peer reviewed papers and its historic, documented connection to the creationist movement.

Their argument: Evolution hasn't 100% explained the existence of every last biological feature of every single organism in existence, therefore an outside force that no one can detect *COUGH*god*COUGH* must have done it.

You don't see a difference?

On a side note, I believe animals have souls and I am vegetarian.

You completely misssed the point, if you think that being a vegetarian is relevant, if I am correct in assuming you believe plants don't have souls. So then this goes back all the way? All the way to bacteria? But if we have a common ancestor with plants, and all of our ancestors had souls, then that means there necessarily was a bacterium that had a soul but whose offspring had no soul (which then went on to become plants). On another vein, bacteria with souls: How does the soul of a creature that simply undergoes mitosis and splits pass on? Does it go away and two new souls come? Does the soul split? When a bacterium dies, how does god decide what happens to the soul? Are bacteria held accountable for their actions as we humans supposedly are? Etc. There are too many logical incoherencies in that idea.

 

[Arbre]

What if you believe carrots and peas have souls?

 

[oneplus999]

What if you believe carrots and peas have souls?

Yum... souls.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kitten_huffing

 

[Easykill]

So if only humans have souls, and only people with souls go to heaven, then heaven by the standard definition is pretty boring. Besides, how many people had their favorite pet die and had their parents tell them it would be there in heaven? Evolution fits wonderfully with religion.

[I haven't even come close to reading all the posts.]

 

[Singing Gremlin]

I don't honestly think that the Flu we commonly know is going to kill any healthy 4-40 year olds. But thanks for the information, though I have to think, how can mercury not harm the brain?

Apple pips contain cyanide. Yet we can eat them. Therefore, mercury in minuscule amounts is not certain to damage the brain. I thought religion was based on faith. Proof denies faith, therefore by backing up your religion with 'evidence' and 'facts' and trying to prove that your religion is possible surely undermines the whole principle of religion? If that doesn't make sense go read the Hitchhiker's Guide. I have no issues with people being religious, but it annoys the hell out of me when they try and prove it's true. As such the FSM is my new deity

 

[Geoffrey42]

Apple pips contain cyanide. Yet we can eat them.

For the most part, apple seeds aren't digested. They pass unharmed, and thus get to be trees, with a handy source of fertilizer.

But, as a general thing: nearly anything can be bad for you or be irrelevant, depending on the dose. Not enough water? Bad. Enough water? Good. Too much water? Bad (drowning/hyperhydration). Small enough amount of mercury/cyanide? Meh. Threshold amount? Death.

 

[Sentient Muffin]

Sorry, gang, but I'm a Haruhiist in good standing. ;-)

LOL!

Wow, didn't see that one coming. Good for you!

So if only humans have souls, and only people with souls go to heaven, then heaven by the standard definition is pretty boring. Besides, how many people had their favorite pet die and had their parents tell them it would be there in heaven? Evolution fits wonderfully with religion.

[I haven't even come close to reading all the posts.]

I have!


Seriously though, I've got nothing to contribute to the argument except confusion. Good Luck Escapist junkies!

 

[Anarchemitis]

I don't care for the FSM. I also beleive it to be very odd how I found the painter's website (http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/) before I heard of the FSM.

 

[BrainFromArous]

Religions are ok with science right up to the point where science challenges their dogma.

Creationists, for example, happily avail themselves of technology and engineering achievements in transportation, communication, construction, sanitation, and whatnot untroubled by the fact that the same science which enabled these wonders also reveals the Earth to be more than 6000 years old and that, yes, evolution is true.

As long as they don't have to confront that part, they're A-OK with science. That confrontation is unavoidable, though, because sooner or later someone will turn the spotlight of empiricism and experimentation on what religions consider to be their "turf."

The battle was joined once science went beyond building a better mousetrap and tackled things like the historicity of sacred texts, the origin of man, the relation of Earth to the heavens, etc.

"Faith" is at odds with science not merely because of the specific teachings of this or that religion but due to its essential nature. Faith inverts the scientific method by beginning with conclusions (prophecies, clerical decrees, books declared to be the Word of God, sacred traditions, etc.) and working backwards to the facts.

If your faith/religion makes any concrete claims about reality, it runs the risk of colliding with what is subsequently learned through scientific investigation. What do you do? Your ancient holy book says "X" but we now know that "Not-X" is true. What do you do?

Your options at that point are either outright irrationalism and denial (a la Young Earth Creationism) or to sacrifice the discredited dogma.

"Well" you say, "Seems like that part wasn't the Word of God after all."

Then how do you know what IS?!

You don't, of course. You never did. You just had "faith."

 

[FireFox170]

Let me start by saying that I don't believe anything has a soul, and that all matters of the mind and personality are purely physical. How can a soul exist if it can't be measured and has no effect on anything other than how you think or act, are all souls different in some fundamental way? Cause they can't all be the same or everyone be the same..Would a soul be able to evolve?

Sorry, I don't believe in souls, so all Soul-Related debates are rendered meaningless to me. At what point does a fetus develop it's own soul? And taken in an evolutionary sense, if our common ancestor had no soul, and chimpanzee's have no souls, did our souls evolve into our bodies gradually over time? It wouldn't be a sudden step from no soul to having a soul, there'd have to be the development of a soul gradually, piece by piece, and how would a soul be a natural advantage over our competitors when it does nothing either than give us mind or personality? If you look at any animal you can see that each one has different tendencies brought on by personality, so how can an animal have a personality but no soul yet we have a soul with a personality?

Bleh, Souls Don't Exist, In My Opinion.
Everything can be explained with nature rather than GOD DID IT!
That seems such a childish way of explaining things, rather lazy too...Why does the earth move around the sun? God pushes it of course! There can't possibly be a natural force which propels the Earth around the sun due to a difference in Mass which favors the smaller mass being pulled towards the larger mass due to a bend in Space-Time, for as everyone knows Mass Distorts Space-Time.