The website for Truth In Science has just launched 5 minutes ago (I know because I pressed the switch to make it go public, having helped out a bit with building the website).
Truth In Science is a UK organisation seeking to improve science education in the UK, especially in the area of theories of origins. It is hoping to promote teaching of alternatives to evolution, especially Intelligent Design, and encourage critical examination of evolutionary theories. I'm proud to have helped out as I've been able.
Comments §
Because if you cannot proove in a way that a theory is false then it is not a theory.
"anti-proovability" is the main caracteristic of a theory. You cannot do that with ID, therfore it not a theory.
Beside from a philosophic standpoint, promoting God thru pseudo-theory as ID is just presenting Him as a proovable quantity thus making Him smaller than He is supposed to be (Infinite and Eternal).
Religions and mysticism are about the personnal experience of faith not rituals and pseudo-theory.
Your god looks small to me.
However, the fact of the matter is that evolution *is* being taught in schools, and in the UK it is being taught as not only a scientific theory, but 'scientific fact', and in a totally uncritical and biased way. As such, I believe it is a very bad influence on science in general, especially biology, and on philosophy, and that it is a very good thing for it to be critically examined.
I should also say that although theories of origins are not exactly scientific theories, you would expect to be able to use science, or something like it, to examine them, as you can examine with other aspects of history. Theories which don't match up to the reality of history ought to be abandoned.
Christianity especially stands or falls by its historicity -- the apostle Paul was willing to say to the early converts "if Christ has not been raised from the dead, your faith is in vain", and he encouraged people to go and talk to the 500 witnesses of the resurrection, "most of whom are still alive".
You have jumped to conclusions in saying that I am seeking to promote God through ID, and that I want to present Him as a provable quantity. I'm seeking more to challenge the huge amount of poor science and terribly weak philosophies which, despite very serious flaws, have a large mindshare and strongly hinder people's ability to really think about these things. "Science has disproved God", and all that kind of rubbish, is a frighteningly common sentiment, and a myth that it would be good to dispel.
I do agree that a personal experience is at the heart of all true religion, and that God is not a provable quantity. He is not someone to be put in a box and examined -- rather, the right approach is to recognise that we are the ones under examination. But the real history of the world is not an irrelevant detail -- certainly not to Christianity, I can't speak for other religions. If God did not come in the flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ, if he didn't really die and rise again, then Christianity is a worthless lie. It is because I believe that he really did do these things that I can put my trust in him to bring me to God. On what basis can I put my faith in him otherwise?
I'd be really interested to hear your response!
In essence, no field of scientific research operates outside a framework of reference, and for the human evolution that framework is the fact and theory of evolution. As neatly summarised by Milford Wolpoff (1999: 31-2), evolution is defined as "the genetic transformation of populations through time, created by alterations in the genetic makeup of populations from generation to generation. The consequences of this process are changes in the adaptations and diversity of populations. This mechanism of descent with modification is responsible for the pattern and variety of life on earth: a tall order for so simple a concept. The theory part of the "theory of evolution" is concerned with how these changes in genetic makeup occur and what effect they have on populations. Evolutionists have critically examined the mechanisms causing genetic change, the problem of whether these mechanisms need to be viewed at the level of the gene, the individual, or the species, the issue of whether changes are gradual or episodic, and the extent to which evolution is directional. However, these is no question about two facts:
1. The process of evolution is an actuality, a hypothesis more than 100-years old that has not been disproved. For there to be no evolution, every generation would have to be exactly the same genetically as the previous generation.
2. Evolution if the singular explanation for the history of life on our planet. It is not a hypothesis about how life came to be, but rather an explanation and description of the processes governing its changes over time."
Wolpoff. 1999. Paleoanthropology.
Meanwhile can you give me any reason why the earth is not 4.6 billions of years old without resorting to the distortions, misquotations etc of Blanchard, McIntosh etc
ID doesn't match the Karl Popper criteria(1) : it has no predictions on future archeological find and no refutability. It is not even wrong (0)
But I agree with you the scientific reasonning should be taught with more intensity. Still, biology is a very bad place to start.(Newtonian) Physics seems more adapted : scientific theory then proof by simple experience or observation as a starting point to build a theory. To do the same in Biology is *much* harder, the experiences are much harder to setup (cellular biology) or more complex to analyse (animal behavior for example).
Beside the ID thing is deeply political and religious. It is too polemic to be a good candidate. If it is really about the scientific reasonning, Physics should be choosed instead. If it is specifically about ID, ID needs first to muscle it scientific formalism (mainly its capacity to predict future archeological find and therefore to be refuted).
About Christianity, It is a touchy subject.
Christianity has a very dubious "historicity" (the new testament was written long time after Jesus death, see (3)) and the texts does change a lot from one tradition (orthodox, ethiopian) to the other, and across time. Some traditions (early christian sects) even say that the man who cam back from the desert was an apprentice met in the desert, not the orginal messiah. Why choosing one version over the other ? You can't simply say the others are False, mine is True.
Beside The dogma is not a fixed quatity.
ref :
(0) Not even wrong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
(1) Theory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_as_.22models.22
(2) Darwinism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
From my point of view the fact that Jesus died and rised again or not is not very important. His teachings are. THe books and rituals are just a door to his house, an introduction.
Religious faith is not something to put in something (or remove), at least not actively. it is something you *feel*. the only proof you need is the feeling itself. That the "holy" book got it wrong has nothing to do with the day-to-day presence of caring God.
But this short book (Wisdom of Insecurity) explain it much better than I.
ref :
(3) History of the Bible : http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/, http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
(4) Wisdom of Insecurity : http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Insecurity-Vintage-Alan-Watts/dp/0394704681/sr=8-1/qid=1159374167/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4179039-1878530?ie=UTF8&s=books
@Michael Brass:
I'm happy to agree that 'micro-evolution' - the observable change in a species' genetic makeup over generations - is a fact, and I know of no creationist who would deny it.
Unfortunately, many people (including, it seems, those quoted on the page you linked to) confuse micro-evolution with amoeba-to-man type evolution, for which there is astonishingly little evidence. You *must* distinguish between these two things -- they are completely different in terms of disprovability etc.
That page mainly contains a restatement of evolutionary dogma, from people who have quite clearly have already assumed a naturalistic explanation as the only allowable one. In that framework, I'll agree that macro-evolution must have occurred (and is therefore a 'fact'), and the rest of the theory of evolution is theory and speculation about how this happened. But it's not the only framework, and I'm convinced there are very good reasons for rejecting it.
@lionel:
It turns out we believe such totally different things that there isn't much point discussing it. The whole of Christianity is about what is really going to happen when Jesus really comes again, or when you really die and face God. I'm sticking with the apostle Paul ;-) (1 Cor 15:14)
@michael:
I guess the only profitable thing I can say here is I'm sorry you feel like that, in more ways than one. I'm not about to answer your question here, but if you e-mail me I'd be happy to.
Who claims humans descended from amoebas? If your knowledge of biology is such that you lump unicellular organisms together under the name 'amoeba' I suggest you educate yourself, or talk about something else.
A few months ago, Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Guy Consolmagno, Vatican's astronomer.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060522creationism.shtml
``Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which [turns] God into a nature god.''
I also invite you to read the letter that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
You might also want to read the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996):
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
_Inherit the Wind_ (1960)
Directed by Stanley Kramer and starring Spencer Tracy. Superb.
Then "Of course, we can't really get into debate about these things in this format."
Completely disillusioning. Worse, of course, is the anti-science dogma. Worst, and final is labelling science as "dogma".
The whole "micro-" and "macro-" evolution thing is so absurd. How could there possibly be two mechanisms? How contrived a universe are you postulating? What possible rationale can there be for making something so simple into two separate processes?
The "teach the debate" tactic used by US conservatives is so hypocritical as to be laughable, yet, you were sucked in to believing that (a) there is a debate and (b) the act of debating is more relevant than the substance of the debate.
Thanks for a few interesting posts. I'm forced to stop subcribing to your RSS feed, however, so don't bother to reply.
http://drdino.com/downloads.php
Or read this online-book:
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook
So-called "christianity" is not a religion, it's the reality. Christianity is a supernatural reality. Of course, you guys have never heard about speaking in tongues, prophesyings, divine healings and those things. But fact is: it IS for real!
For about four years ago, I was an evolutionist. Then I learned the truth about so-called "evolution", and become convinced. Then, I prayed the Lord Jesus to save me. After 20 seconds God answered me and filled me with His Holy Spirit. This was a supernatural experience, and it lasted for about 60 seconds. After that experience, I was totally transformed. It was as scales had fallen from my eyes.
Since that day, I have never doubted anything in Gods Word, because I had personally experienced THE TRUTH. Yes, it's all about the truth - never "religion". I despise religion, i.e. false christianity and such. This is the reality.
JESUS IS LORD! (And Kio-Sword is very useful in God's service.)