Believing Scripture & Pursuing Science: The Bifurcation of the Mind

[Gokul43201]

What about this one: a person is shot 20 times. Each bullet has hit a finger or toe. The preacher looks at the patient and says that he was purposely shot. The doctor says that they were just random shots fired by a chaingun that went off by itself.

You can't decide who is right based on their conclusions; you need to hear the complete arguments. But this is exactly the thing the IDers (such as you, perhaps) refuse to do. They refuse to accept that it takes long, hard work to figure stuff out...and instead believe, as above, that one can "arrive" at conclusions based on a casual glance at things.

We don't make judgements based on appearances, we make them based on a system of reasoning that has proven to hold water. If the doctor's argument is based on a careful scientific study of the case that is backed up by sufficient evidence, and is verified independently by other doctors/forensics experts, I'd definitely believe them, rather than the preacher that arrived at a conclusion based simply on a perfunctory glance at the locations of the bullet shots.

You couldn't have more clearly illustrated the problem with ID than you just did.

 

[Thrice]

The opposite is equally true. If evolutionists managed to show that neodarwinism is capable of what they claim it is capable of, and back it up with empirical evidence instead of philosophical possibilities, then the ID folks will not have a foot left to stand on.

My irony meter is going nuts here.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The opposite is equally true. If evolutionists managed to show that neodarwinism is capable of what they claim it is capable of, and back it up with empirical evidence instead of philosophical possibilities, then the ID folks will not have a foot left to stand on.

What do you want proof of macro evolution, or proof of micro evolution? They have both.

ID doesn't have a leg to stand on anyway, it's the snake of the scientific community. Using spurious reasoning and faulty science to "prove" its case. It's selling snake oil and claiming its science. Another analogy would be the snake in the garden of Eden, wanting Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, or to put it another way to swallow it.

 

[Kurdt]

I've recently thought of a new theory called P-theory. Now P-theory states that there are invisible organisms similar to pixies that cannot be detected. These organisms rarely interact with our universe as they are slightly phase shifted from the background spacetime, but when they do they tend to only stay for microseconds. Now there is no "proof" or "evidence" for P-theory but you know when you misplace something and you never find it, then a pixie came from their phase shifted universe and took it back with them. This is an example of one success of P-theory in the explanation of missing objects.

Of course this isn't really "scientific" in the traditional sense but what matters at the end of the day is whether its true or not and I believe it is.

 

[whatta]

In response to original poster:

I think there's nothing incomprehensible here. Noone asks any questions when a scientist in his paper calculates the angle of light bending using Newton gravitation model and GR on the same page. Or, it is not a big deal if someone speaks two languages native to nations that are currently fight in war or something. So what's so wrong here?

Personally, I like to think of multiple (scientific) theories and (non-scientific) beliefs we have as sort of reality "models" made to fit particular data about this reality. some do equally good, some not. some are better in explaining one things, some - in explainig other things. some are even incomparable. these "models" are like projections of some higher-dimensional truth humans will never really grasp.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I've recently thought of a new theory called P-theory. Now P-theory states that there are invisible organisms similar to pixies that cannot be detected. These organisms rarely interact with our universe as they are slightly phase shifted from the background spacetime, but when they do they tend to only stay for microseconds. Now there is no "proof" or "evidence" for P-theory but you know when you misplace something and you never find it, then a pixie came from their phase shifted universe and took it back with them. This is an example of one success of P-theory in the explanation of missing objects.

Of course this isn't really "scientific" in the traditional sense but what matters at the end of the day is whether its true or not and I believe it is.

This explains how no matter how many pens you buy, eventually you will end up with no pens, they must be pretty mischievous because this seems to happen more often when you desperately need a pen, like your on the phone and you need to note down someone's number.

It also explains the famous, take all the screws out of a particular piece of equipment, and then when you've finished either A) your a few screws short (presumably the pixies have taken them) Or B) you have a couple of screws left over that don't appear to fit anything (The pixies have delivered two screws from somewhere else: thus maintaining the law of conservation of energy) It's quite brilliant really.

 

[PIT2]

What do you want proof of macro evolution, or proof of micro evolution? They have both.

How about the formation of organs?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How about the formation of organs?

What like the eye? I can show you the theoretical process if you'd like? Why is this particularly inexplicable?

If you mean generally:-

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-14108.html
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/12/8116.pdf

 

[PIT2]

We don't make judgements based on appearances, we make them based on a system of reasoning that has proven to hold water.

Its a system of reasoning that is proven to be flawed.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

Here's a better "intelligent design" argument from the Catholic Church.

Although it's making some pretty odd conclusions, it's at least got some scientific learning wrapped up in its argument.

(4) Rudimentary Organs.–One of the special arguments commonly cited in favour of the evolution theory is based on the frequent occurrence of rudimentary structures in organisms. As examples we may mention the following: Pythons and boas possesses vestiges of hind legs and of a pelvis separated from the vertebral column.–The slow-worm is without external limbs, and yet possesses the shoulder-girdle and the pelvis, as well as a slightly developed breast-bone.–The ostrich has merely stunted wing-bones, while the nearly extinct kiwi (apteryx) of New Zealand has only extremely small stumps of wings, which are clothed with hair-like feathers.–The gigantic birds of New Zealand which became extinct in past ages were entirely wingless.–Well worthy of note, also are the rudimentary organs of the whale (Cetacea), since of the hind limbs only a few minute bones remain, and these are considered to be the pelvic bones, while the Greenland whale (Balœ;na mysticetus) also possesses thigh and leg bones. The bones of the fore-limbs are not movable independently of one another, being bound together by means of tendons–.Other remarkable vestigial structures are the teeth of the Arctic right whale, which never penetrate the gums and are reabsorbed before birth, the upper teeth of the ox, the milk teeth and the eyes of the mole. The deep sea fish, like the Barathronus, have instead of eyes "two golden metallic concave mirrors" (Chun).–Nor is man devoid of rudimentary organs. Wedersheim mentions no fewer than one hundred. But of these only a few are genuine. The vermiform appendix may serve as an example, though according to recent research it is not entirely functionless. Its length oscillates between 2 cm. and 23 cm., while its breadth and external form vary exceedingly. Probable reasons for its partially rudimentary character are, besides its extreme variability, especially two facts in particular: the length of the organ compared with that of the large intestine is as 1:10 in the embryo, and as 1:20 in the adult; secondly, in 32 per cent of all cases among adults of over twenty years of age the appendix is found to be closed.

Do such rudimentary organs furnish us with an acceptable proof for the theory of evolution?–It is to be admitted that in many instances the organs were formerly in a more perfect condition, so as to perform their typical functions–e.g., the eyes of the mole as organs of sight; and the limbs of the kiwi as means of locomotion for running or even for flying. Hence those individuals which now possesses rudimentary organs are descended from ancestors which were in possession of these same organs in a less degenerated condition. But it cannot be ascertained from the structures whether those ancestors were of another kind than their offspring. The vermiform appendix in man is fully explained by supposing it to have had in antediluvian man a more perfect function of secretion, or even of digestion. Until the palæontological records furnish us with evidence we can only conclude from the occurrence of rudimentary structures that in former ages the whale possessed better developed limbs, that the moles had better eyes, the kiwi wings, etc. In short, rudimentary organs per se do not prove more than that structures may dwindle away by disuse.

Haeckel's endeavour to invalidate the teleological argument has no foundation in fact. In many cases the function of rudimentary organs has been discovered–e.g., the rudimentary teeth of the whale are probably of use in the growth of the jaw; the breast-bone of the slow-worm as a protection of the chest. But even in instances in which we have not succeeded in discovering the function of such structures, it must not be forgotten that degeneration may be eminently teleological in furnishing material for other organs whose functions become more important. Moreover, as long as rudimentary organs remain, they may become, under altered circumstances, the starting-point for an appropriately modified reorganization. It is indeed difficult to see how "dysteleology", as Haeckel calls it, follows from the fact that an organ adapted to specified means of livelihood disappears, probably in order to strengthen other organs when those means of livelihood are changed; and, until the contrary is proved, we may assume that we have to deal with instances of teleological adaptation and correlation, as has already been demonstrated in many cases–e.g., in the development of amphibians.

Evolution is more than a mere hypothesis

Pope John Paul II

 

[PIT2]

What like the eye? I can show you the theoretical process if you'd like? Why is this particularly inexplicable?

I don't mean the theoretical process, but the empirical evidence.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't mean the theoretical process, but the empirical evidence.

How do you want me to show you how organs form over the internet? I can show you some sites about stem cell research I guess? How certain cells can differentiate into different organs by the actions of certain chemicals etc? Or maybe you want me to show you how say feathers evolved, or how our finger prints are vestigial remains of scales, I'm not sure how I can show exactly how an organ formed, it would take hundreds of years? I can look at how they form now, or earlier relatives that live now, and see how the organs developed. Hypothesise from vestigial features how they were lost, or indeed how new organs formed.

Its a system of reasoning that is proven to be flawed.

How and where? Show me how it has been proven to be flawed? There are flaws in evolutionary theory, or to be more precise holes, but I wouldn't go so far as to call these flaws, more like missing pieces.

 

[PIT2]

I've recently thought of a new theory called P-theory. Now P-theory states that there are invisible organisms similar to pixies that cannot be detected.

That sounds like that little invisible thing that's inside every human being, called P-consciousness.

 

[PIT2]

I'm not sure how I can show exactly how an organ formed, it would take hundreds of years?

Dont u mean millions of years? But yes those kind of powers can't be demonstrated. U can't expect nonmaterialists to accept a materialistic theory which can't be shown to be capable of the job.

How and where? Show me how it has been proven to be flawed? There are flaws in evolutionary theory, or to be more precise holes, but I wouldn't go so far as to call these flaws, more like missing pieces.

What i meant was that there are things that can't be empirically tested at all, like consciousness.

 

[Kurdt]

Dont u mean millions of years? But yes those kind of powers can't be demonstrated. U can't expect nonmaterialists to accept a materialistic theory which can't be shown to be capable of the job.

You can demonstrate the evolution of particular organs through other animals many of them prehistoric in nature and follow the chain of cumulative natural selection. The eye for instance can be traced back to light sensitive cells on a prehistoric flatworm which still exists and then to descendants where those light sensitive cells become more specialised until eventually a rudimentary eye is developed (perhaps a biologist could give me a hand with a link here). The same goes for most other organs.

 

[Evo]

This has gotten WAAAY off topic into a discussion of ID, which is not science. It's pointless to discuss.