Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

Valid points. As you say, the materialist worldview is an article of
faith. I've said it before and I'll say it again - neither the
existence nor non-existence of God can be proven or disproven. QED.
That said, the belief in macro-evolution does seem to be an
"unassailable belief." Just look at what happened in Kansas when the
state school board voted to allow teachers to discuss criticisms of
evolution. Not to mandate the teaching of only literalist Biblical
six-day-creationsism, just to allow teachers to present the fact that
not every scientist agrees 110% with Darwin. They were pilloried and
mocked, and ultimately driven out of office.

The term "intelligent design" was coined specifically to gain some
distance from the NON-scientific young-earth-ultra-literal crowd.
Saying that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design is NOT
the same as insisting that it was created in 144 hours. Though
materialists continually attempt to lump us together, but we're rather
different. I commend to you Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old
Earth." If he hadn't written it, I probably would have had to,
someday.

Occam's Razor certainly applies. But the question is not merely
whether it's more logically simple that a universe preexisted or was
created by a preexisting diety; it's whether it's logically simpler
that an infinitely complex, beautiful, and *functional* universe "just
happened" or whether it was designed by some Cosmic Engineer. Occam's
Razor cuts the other way when you look at the question in that light.

I certainly agree with using inductive reasoning - to look at the
evidence and draw conclusions based on fact. Deductive reasoning -
beginning with a philosophical premise and then proceeding - only
leads in logical circles. The problem I see with most materialists is
that they claim to be inductive, but they begin with a deductive
assumption that the physical world is all that exists. That is simply
and demonstrably not true. Can you devise a scientific test for love?
How do you know that you love your children? How can you prove it -
scientifically?

Science is not the be-all and end-all. Those who put their whole
faith in science often claim that it has a pretty good track record
for explaining things. I beg to differ. For every question that
science answers, it raises three more. Science increases uncertainty,
enlarges the realm of that-which-is-not-known. (There's got to be a
pun somewhere in there about curiosity killing Schroedinger's cat...)

Not everything is scientifically testable. The origin of the universe
is not an experiment that can be repeated. That's where the tools of
the historian come into play.

For me, it all hinges on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. If
he didn't, then it's game over as far as religion is concerned. If he
did, well, that raises a whole 'nother set of questions. A
resurrection is not a repeatable experiment. Science is of minimal
value. (Beginning the investigation with, "he didn't because we know
that dead people stay dead" doesn;t work, because it's beginning with
an assumption that precludes one whole line of investigation. If an
all-powerful God really does exist, and Jesus really was His son, then
a one-time resurrection - to prove a point or to accomplish some great
work - is certainly possible.)

For me, Occam's Razor leads me to the conclusion that the Resurrection
was indeed a real, historical event. I'm leaving out the evidence and
reasonings, but I'll be happy to share them if you're interested. But
FWIW I started out as a skeptic, trying to disprove the historical
claims of Christianity. As I said, that leads to a whole other set of
questions, including the conclusion that the materialist worldview is
erroneous.

That doesn't mean I'm superstitious or non-scientific, and it's
insulting to suggest that I am. I have examined the evidence - more
objectively than a grreat many skeptics I've spoken to - and come to
certain conclusions based on that evidence. It's fine to disagree
about the evidence, reasoning, and conclusions - that's what
intelligent, civilized people do.


Corrie

"Eric Miller" wrote in message v.net...
"Corrie" wrote
Proponents of intelligent design theory don't engage in
pseudo-science. Like our materialist coutnerparts, we observe the
evidence and predict outcomes. (Testing evolutionary hypotheses is
done by observation, since you can't very well set up experiments over
timescales of millions of years, no matter what your persuasion.)

We simply come to a different conclusion. But the materialist
orthodoxy is so entrenched - is mind-controlling too strong a term? -
than any deviation from Darwinian Holy Writ is labeled heretical.
Futher, the heretics are made the target of viscious, mean-spirited ad
hominem attacks. That's bigotry, plain and simple.


Evolution - macro-evolution between phyla or orders - IS only theory.
It is NOT proven. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one
way. But it is taught to children as established fact, and those who
dare deviate are persecuted. Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's
Scopes in reverse. Someone said something about people should be able
to make informed choices?

From a purist standpoint, *anyone* entrenched in a belief system, no matter
what their title or beliefs, is not engaging in science. Period. Science is
open to criticism. Faith (and that includes faith *in* science) is not. By
definition, there are no unassailable beliefs in science.

My comments about pseudo-science not observing and predicting was a general
comment directed especially at the pyramid-crystal-magnet-homeopathic crowd
that couldn't conduct a double-blind study if they performed their tests at
midnight in a coal mine after plunging red-hot spikes into their eyes...
(Now, ask me how I *really* feel )

Testability is a cornerstone of science. And while macro-evolution doesn't
lend itself well to testing, in theory it could be tested, demonstrated and
proven.You can *not* test and prove intelligent design, that's an article of
faith. Untestable hypotheses are useless and are the hallmark junk science.
The classic cases are mediums, spiritualists and mentalists whose powers
mysterious vanish when subjected to controlled conditions citing "hostile"
environments. "Some things have to be belived to be seen" is not an
acceptable tenet of scientific inquiry.

Personally speaking, I see no tautological difference between saying first
there was a creator who then created the universe and saying first there was
the universe which exists without a creator. For God's sake (pun fully
intended ), use Occam's razor and cut out the middle man!

We should find the anthropomorphic principle to be mutually acceptable.
Acceptable to me because I can interpret it to state that if conditions
*weren't* just right, we wouldn't be here right now (discussing evolution on
RAH).
Acceptable to you because you can interpret it to state that some higher
power made the conditions just right (so we can discuss evolution on RAH).

Remember the word "theory" has different meaning in the vernacular than it
does in the scientific community, and this causes a lot of confusion.
In common parlance, "theory" means unproven, could be true, who knows?
Scientifically, "theory" means a generally accepted principle without any
major contradictions.
You don't hear much controversy over the Pythagorean Theorem

I wouldn't exactly call creationists (honest question: is that the old term
for intelligent design theorists?) persecuted.
However, the fact is they *don't* practice science and for that reason have
excluded *themselves* from the scientific community. If you don't play by
the rules, you don't get to join the club; it's that simple. If I use
steroids, I can't try out for the women's Olympic track and field because a)
steriods aren't allowed b) I'm not a woman and c) I'd get my butt whooped
regardless of a) and b)... However, that doesn't equate my exclusion from
women's track and field with bigotry.

Again, personally speaking, I'd rather children were taught that the world
is subject to change and here is a mechanism which can explain it, than they
were taught the world was created 6007 years ago, hasn't changed since and
BTW God is a big trickster (for creating fossil records, background
radition, etc)... YMMV

Eric