DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Xinglu]

No such experiment has been conceived for "creationism." Doesn't make it wrong or right, merely, until such time as an experiment that can prove or disprove it is conceived, not a theory.It's a fair postulate, which is a better word for a ""scientific guess," but it's not a theory. Doesn't mean that they conflict, or that they don't-just that one is a genuine theory supported by experimentation, observation and results, and the other is an educated guess that has none of these things to support it.

Touché! I concede this point

Of course this is more damning to the creationist objections then what I put forth :wink:

 

[elder999]

t. But I know a tenured prof. of mechanical engineering who teaches aerodynamics and plane design who believes on scientific grounds (he says) that the earth is 6000 years old and was intelligently designed.

Yeah, we've had a few really high-powered ones in Los Alamos-when I first moved out (1993-94) there was an ongoing, protracted and rancorous public debate about teaching intelligent design in the schools.

One of them is a biologist, of all things... :lfao:

 

[elder999]

Touché! I concede this point

Of course this is more damning to the creationist objections then what I put forth :wink:

Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:

 

[Xinglu]

Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:

True, furthermore it doesn't mean there is one there to begin with.

Furthermore, assuming a God exists, there is no reason to assume he created us or "intelligently designed" us either. :enguard:

 

[elder999]

Yeah, we've had a few really high-powered ones in Los Alamos-when I first moved out (1993-94) there was an ongoing, protracted and rancorous public debate about teaching intelligent design in the schools.

One of them is a biologist, of all things... :lfao:

Another was a rather embarassingly well educated geophysicist-he's a nut-a "young earth" advocate, who wrote this kind of drivel:

This understanding readily explains why Darwinian intermediate types are systematically absent from the geological record -- the fossil record documents a brief and intense global destruction of life and not a long evolutionary history! The types of plants and animals preserved as fossils were the forms of life that existed on the earth prior to the catastrophe. The long span of time and the intermediate forms of life that the evolutionist imagines in his mind are simply illusions. And the strong observational evidence for this catastrophe absolutely demands a radically revised time scale relative to that assumed by evolutionists

John Baumgatner, B.S.E.E., Texas Tech, M.S.E.E., Princeton, PhD. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA.



It's people like this that give Dawkins a good name....:lfao: He's also the one who came up with the "message from God in our DNA" thingy...:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: Think he had a coupla drinks and watched "Mission to Mars" :lfao:

(And, he's an example of how belief in science is not an act of faith: he's done "bad science" in order to fit it to his faith. Dumbass. )

 

[Ramirez]

Science requires evidence, yes. A layperson's belief in the theories science produces does not require evidence. It is faith.

I have to disagree Bill, anyone with the talent and the ability can acquire the knowledge to understand the evidence of any scientific theory as in say achieving a doctorate in physics if they want to fully understand the current cosmological models and the evidence that supports them.

Your assertion is akin to saying an computers run on faith because 99% if the population are not electrical engineers.

Even the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rely on faith just like any non-clergy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your assertion is akin to saying an computers run on faith because 99% if the population are not electrical engineers.

Computers do not run on faith, but people have faith in the accuracy of computers.

And computers generally do not let them down. When they do, it generally takes some effort to convince people that the result their computer is giving them is incorrect.

It isn't about what is literally right or wrong, it's about the belief people place in those things.

Even the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rely on faith just like any non-clergy.

I assume that's a jab at religion, but to be honest, I don't get it. I'm sure it's funny, but I guess you'll have to explain it to me.

 

[Ramirez]

I assume that's a jab at religion, but to be honest, I don't get it. I'm sure it's funny, but I guess you'll have to explain it to me.

I am saying anyone can learn the computer language behind Excel to find out for themselves if the program is accurate, they no longer need to rely on faith.

On the other hand you can attend seminary school , learn everything there is to know about a religion go through the ranks become the Pope and you still have to rely on faith for its tenets, beliefs etc.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am saying anyone can learn the computer language behind Excel to find out for themselves if the program is accurate, they no longer need to rely on faith.

I agree that they do not need to - but most people do. I can't imagine any of my managers who could be arsed to figure out how to write Perl code, for example. They have faith in the accuracy of my code, though.

On the other hand you can attend seminary school , learn everything there is to know about a religion go through the ranks become the Pope and you still have to rely on faith for its tenets, beliefs etc.

Yes, I agree. Religion, no matter how you parse it, must always rely upon faith, and technology (or science, etc) need not rely upon faith. But faith is what most people have in it, despite their ability to prove such things to themselves if they wish. Your point is well-taken, but in reality, faith in science is still what most people have, even if they have other options - in my opinion.

 

[Ramirez]

Your point is well-taken, but in reality, faith in science is still what most people have, even if they have other options - in my opinion.

Yeah but it is not faith that you get in your car and a combination of newtonian physics, electrical theory and chemistry makes it go, on the other hand you can pray all day with faith that water will run uphill and it won't work.

 

[Ramirez]

I agree that they do not need to - but most people do. I can't imagine any of my managers who could be arsed to figure out how to write Perl code, for example. They have faith in the accuracy of my code, though.

Really? I have never seen IT work done where the results were not checked by some process before having faith in the work.

I don't think science is done without a peer review process either.

The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Really? I have never seen IT work done where the results were not checked by some process before having faith in the work.

That is not direct knowledge. If they put faith in some other process before they put faith in the computer, that's still faith. In any case...

Most of the world that uses computers are not IT people and do not have their 'work' peer-reviewed. They are simply end-users of computers.

I work in IT. I presume you do too. Most of the world does not, and yet computers are pervasive.

I don't think science is done without a peer review process either.

Neither do I. Again, you're presuming I am saying that science is not accurate. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that most people don't bother doing the experiments themselves (nor should they), but they put their trust in the concept that science is often right. That's faith.

The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.

That is the difference between the two, yes. The difference between the average layperson's belief in the two is less clear.

I am not comparing religion and science. They are clearly different, and as you say, much of science can be proven - none of religion can be proven. I am comparing Joe Sixpack's belief in, say, the moon landing, and his belief in a particular religion. Both may be justified by being true - or they may be unjustified by being false. One could be true and the other false.

That's not important to his belief. His belief is faith because he has no direct knowledge of either one. That he could have direct knowledge of the moon landings is beside the point - he doesn't and isn't going to bother with it.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:

That would make a great movie.

BTW, is it really necessary to set up and perform an experiement to disprove creationism? I mean, it's already proven the world is older than 6000 years so right off the bat...you know...just sayin'.

 

[Ramirez]

That would make a great movie.

BTW, is it really necessary to set up and perform an experiement to disprove creationism? I mean, it's already proven the world is older than 6000 years so right off the bat...you know...just sayin'.

You know I often see creationists at odds with Big Bang cosmology, not realizing that the competing theory was a steady state universe (Aaron can correct me here, I am going by what I read in Simon Singh's Big Bang), a steady state universe is one that has always existed, it requires no creator.

In fact I think the Catholic Church embraced the Big Bang concept as it proved the universe had a beginning.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In fact I think the Catholic Church embraced the Big Bang concept as it proved the universe had a beginning.

I don't know what caused the Church to embrace evolution, but you might find this interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/03/04/vatican_signals_its_embrace_of_science/

Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biological sciences and philosophy at University of California, Irvine, called intelligent design and creationism "blasphemous" to science and to the Christian faith.
"It is not only not compatible with Christian faith, it is just blasphemous because it predicates from the creator attributes that we don't want to have from the creator," he said.
He cited as an example the fact that the human jaw is too small for all its teeth, requiring wisdom teeth to be extracted. "An engineer who designed the human jaw would be fired the next day. Are we going to blame God for that?"

 

[celtic_crippler]

Prove to whom?

To me. I don't care what you believe as long as it has no negative impact on me and mine.

Otherwise, believe what you want.

What if your department head invited you, and you could see the rocks falling up for yourself? Would you go, or simply dismiss him out of hand?

What if he told you "God" was going to make it happen, and you saw it for yourself?

What if spacemen landed in your front yard and and said, "It's time to get back in the pet carrier...come on....come on....it's okay....come on snuckums....".

From my POV, teaching creationism in the classroom is a step back towards a time where superstitions ruled. Where innocent women were burned for witches and the free thinking drawn and quartered. I'd rather not live in that world.

Bottom line: Science makes an assertion and provides evidence for it. Faith makes an assertion and simply expects you to believe it without evidence.

I'm an evidence kinda' guy, so ...I'll go with science. You go with what works for you.

 

[Ramirez]

I don't know what caused the Church to embrace evolution, but you might find this interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/03/04/vatican_signals_its_embrace_of_science/

I like that Bill, thanks!

 

[Andrew Green]

Science requires evidence, yes. A layperson's belief in the theories science produces does not require evidence. It is faith.

The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.

You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.

 

[celtic_crippler]

The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.

You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.

When I was ...like...four years old I used to think there were little people inside the radio playing the music. I also used to hide beside the toilet in hopes of surprising and capturing the Tidy Bowl Man... and sometimes I'd hide in the cabinets trying to catch the Chuck Wagon... TMI? LOL

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.

That the evidence is there does not impact how the person who believes in it does so.

You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.

First, as I've mentioned, most people will never choose to prove every scientific principle which impacts their lives. They take it on faith that it does work and move on. It's a good model in general - we haven't the time (and some of us haven't the education or even the intellect) to prove everything is true before believing in it.

What you're talking about is a relationship between belief and objective reality that may not exist - and it certainly does not have to exist.

A person who has never seen a television before may well think it is full of small people, but they choose to believe the evidence of their own eyes that it works.

A person from a more modern society may believe that there are scientific principles that govern how a television works but not understand them.

Another person may have an engineering background and understand very well how a television works, right down to the basic theory.

Each of these persons has a different personal understanding, and a different personal belief. But the television works regardless of how they feel about it. Their belief is completely decoupled from the objective reality.

If I use your logic, the person who had never seen a television before and believed that there were small people in it would not be engaging in an act of faith, because even though their belief was wrong, there was an objective reality - that television works - which vindicates his belief that it does indeed work. In other words, if the technology works, regardless of how you think it works, then it is not faith.

If that is the case, then a person who believes in a particular religion is NOT engaging in faith if it turns out somehow that his particular religion is true. But since he does not know that today - nor do any of us - I submit that he is engaging in an act of faith. It will stop being faith if his God pops up and shows us all the incontrovertible fact of His existence. He does not engage in faith because there is no proof of his God's existence, he engages in faith because he personally has no such proof. Whether his God exists or not is beside the point of his belief.

I say the primitive man is engaging in faith because he does not understand how the television works, regardless of the fact that it does work (but due to a different principle than little people inside the box).

Likewise, the person who understands that televisions are based on scientific principles but does not know how, is also engaging in faith. His understanding may well be faulty, although it is probably not as off-based as believing in little people inside the box.

It is not the objective reality which makes a person's belief 'faith'. It is how they understand it.