Intelligence: Random Chance or Deliberate Design?

[Cybrweez]

From another thread:

This crucial point is rarely admitted during either lay or expert discussions of scientific findings: The ways we think about science are not themselves scientific.

Its fun for me when I see this absolute belief in science as truth, as if it were outside man.

[ur-bane]

The ways we think about science are not themselves scientific.

?

Crucial point?

Could you please direct me to this other thread so I can get a better picture?
I really need a further explanation of that statement.

[Cybrweez]

The other thread was the State of Fear in Conspiracies, but the quote wasn't discussed. I like to think of it as a scientific test produces a result, but we must interpret that result. That interpretation itself is not scientific.

[Cail]

Good to see you back 'weez. That quote from MC is telling, and certainly applies in this discussion as well.

[ur-bane]

Thanks. I went back and read the thread and the article that you linked.

I got the impression that the author was speaking of "junk science."
It also appears that he is calling all science junk science.

But I still don't see how the interpretations of results are not scientific? That would imply deliberate manipulation of results to suit an agenda.

Certainly that is not the case in all science?

[Cybrweez]

I think the author does speak of junk science, but that quote is for all science. I didn't get the impression that he thought all science was junk, maybe he does tho, that'd be a little overboard I think.

I wouldn't say deliberate manipulation, altho that happens enough. But I don't believe any human is w/o an agenda, b/c we are not objective. We all have certain beliefs that color everything we see. Hence, 2 people can look at the fact of a fossil record and interpret different meanings. Maybe this is blasphemous, but I think its much more common that someone believes in evolution, and looks at the fossil record and sees support for that belief, then that someone looks at the fossil record and comes to believe in evolution, even its own founder, Darwin, included

[Avatar]

I'll certainly agree that everything is subjective, not least the way in which results are interpreted. However, I don't think of it as a belief in the truth of science, because science is always open to question and correction from within and without. However, I do see it as believe in science as the most effective tool for analysing the universe and searching for truths.

--Avatar

[ur-bane]

Well put, Avatar. You put the words right into my mouth.

Reminds me of a line from Contact (Partial paraphrase, maybe )
Matthew Mcconaughey ( a priest) speaking about Jodie Foster (a scientist):

"As a man of the cloth I am bound by a different covenant than miss Arroway...but our goal is the same. The truth."

[Prebe]

Science is the only religion that by definition requires you to renounce it if proven false....

[Avatar]

--A

[ur-bane]

Science is the only religion that by definition requires you to renounce it if proven false....

I cannot concur.

[Prebe]

Why have evolutionists been thrown into the defensive? They are not trying to disprove ID. They are trying to supply an explanation that does not require a big X-factor or deity if you will.

[Prebe]

It has been said before, but I to subscribe to the attitude that it is fine if people want to believe in creationism (let's call a showel a showel), but they should refrain from trying to boost their beliefs with science. Unless of course they are prepared to scientifically explain how the creative intelligence came to be.

[Edge]

As I've said before, it's fine if people want to believe in evolutionism, but they should refrain from trying to convince themselves, or anyone else, that it's anything more than a theory.

[Dromond]

I'll change one word in your previous post, Edge.

As I've said before, it's fine if people want to believe in christianity, but they should refrain from trying to convince themselves, or anyone else, that it's anything more than a theory.

[Prebe]

Hi Edge

Indeed evolution is a theory. A rather well founded one at that. On the other hand the only piece of 'evidence' creationists ever put forth is the mind-numbing improbability of life arising. They don’t talk about the improbability of evolution by natural selection once the whole thing is started. When you say there is a “very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence” for evolution taking place, my conclusion must be the following:

I think (feel) that the only reason that people generally refuse to acknowledge the evidence for evolution is that they have never had a detailed explanation of the concept (don't worry, I am not giving one here ). Quite simply, they have not been presented with the evidence. Why? Because evolution, as opposed to creationism, is complex and it takes a long time to understand the underlying mechanisms. In comparison it takes a good reader 15 minutes to get through Genesis. You say: “I will not believe something just because an authority figure says so”.

My advice is to read about it yourself. If you can honestly say that you understand the concepts of the SCIENTIFIC FACTS of mutation (both point, inversion, deletion, insertion, replication), selection pressure, genetic similarity, vestigial organs/limbs and you have familiarized yourself with a healthy chunk of the fossil record, and STILL claim that there is a “very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence”. Well……..

I did once believe in God. The reason for my conversion to total petrified atheism was people (in my case Jehova’s Witnesses) who tried to "sell the product" using scientific arguments. You can do that to a layman (to whom everything wrapped in a pristine white lab-coat is the truth), but anyone with a scientific background will be put off completely. You can sell belief to me on the grounds of morality, comfort, feelings and love. It shouldn't be pushed using science. Just like science shouldn't be discredited using religion.

Trying to sell creationism to non-scientifically trained person using isolated fragments of science, is a bit like trying to discredit science to a person unfamiliar with the Bible quoting the serpent in the tree: "knowledge is bad for you, bad".

[Edge]

Hi Prebe

Your assumption that I don't believe in evolutionism because I don't know enough about it, or don't understand it, is inaccurate.

I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the subject, but I do know this:

Due to the complexity of the subject, all aspects of it are vital to each other and like a house of cards, when one card falls the whole house comes tumbling down. Of the six main tenets only one, micro, can and has been scientifically observed and tested. No one was around to observe and prove or disprove the others - cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic and macro.

I believe in God. I have not seen him in person, I cannot prove his existence scientifically, but I have seen overwhelming proof of His existence. The world calls my belief a "religion". Evolution has as its backup a series of unproved, unprovable assumptions. Its supporters have to believe in it solely through faith. It, therefore, by the same standards as my belief is judged, constitutes a religion. The conflict is not between religion on one hand and science on the other, but between two opposing religious beliefs.

[Prebe]

Dear Edge

Since you claim to know sufficiently about the theory of evolution to form an educated opinion about it, and you still choose to dismiss it, I can only say well.....

I do however object to you calling it a religion. Let me explain why:
The theory of evolution has come about using scientific observation and logical reasoning. Let me give you an example: To say that mitochondria probably began as endoparasites of eucaryotes is a scientific theory based on following observations: They share a bunch of genes with bacteria, and they have double membranes of which the outer mostly resemble the eucaryotes own an the inner share most of its traits with bacteria. The membrane thus lends credence to the mitochondrion being taken up via endocytosis. The theory is not conclusively proven I grant you, but it is made likely by supplying arguments based on objective observations.

To say that something as complex as living organisms must be designed by a higher intelligence is not a scientific statement. Where are the objective observations? Saying that something is "to complex" is a highly subjective statement.

As you correctly claim, no one has been able to perform experiments to completely demonstrate macro-evolution, by which I assume you mean speciation. Part of the problem here is the large timescale usually involved. If, however, you know the tendency of plants to form interfertile polyploid hybrids (over one generation I might add), that have difficulty crossing back to the parent generation, imagining a new species forming over a 1000 generations is not all that hard. Many dandelion species have lost (or was created without) the ability to sexually reproduce, but do none the less have brightly coloured flowers, like closely related sexually reproducing species. I cannot prove that this was not devised by a higher intelligence, but it does seem more likely to me, that it is a result of evolution.

So by all means call evolution an unproven scientific theory, but not a religion. I am not calling your religion science.

[Plissken]

Due to the complexity of the subject, all aspects of it are vital to each other and like a house of cards, when one card falls the whole house comes tumbling down. Of the six main tenets only one, micro, can and has been scientifically observed and tested. No one was around to observe and prove or disprove the others - cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic and macro.

I believe in God. I have not seen him in person, I cannot prove his existence scientifically, but I have seen overwhelming proof of His existence. The world calls my belief a "religion". Evolution has as its backup a series of unproved, unprovable assumptions. Its supporters have to believe in it solely through faith. It, therefore, by the same standards as my belief is judged, constitutes a religion. The conflict is not between religion on one hand and science on the other, but between two opposing religious beliefs.

Which of these assumptions do you find unsupportable? Which one will bring the house of cards down?

If the choice is between believing that and intelligent source is there who knows the answer, but chooses not to tell us, or that the knowledge is out there and if we study enough we may find them, guess which way I'm choosing...

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I agree that it is two opposing religious beliefs. However, I believe that the religions involved are Science and Christianity, because of the broad subjects involved. While the two have to be reconciled to some degree in the modern day, when it comes to finding 'Truth' they argue directly.