Beware the Believers

[jpdrolet]

For those of you that keep an eye on the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate:

Actually the satirical clip is a controversy by itself: some people think it is pro-science and other think it is pro-ID.

Personnally I think it is an irreverent hommage to the cast, all active advocates of science.

That is related to the upcoming movie: Expelled

[orko]

My vote is: pro-ID

PS. I'm getting a new cup of coffee now...the last one somehow vaporized into a caffeine cloud short after "...for that, we present this little diddy."

[PaulG.]

Uh-oh. Topics like this can quickly digress into "flat-earthers" flaming "amoral atheists" and vice-versa. This topic is LOADED. I have an opinion on just about everything, but not even I will go there.

(la la la la la I'm in my happy place la la la la)

[eaolson]

QUOTE (jpdrolet @ Apr 14 2008, 12:09 PM)

Actually the satirical clip is a controversy by itself: some people think it is pro-science and other think it is pro-ID.

Without actually watching the video or getting into the ID-vs-reality debate, I'd just like to point out Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (eaolson @ Apr 15 2008, 10:09 AM)

Without actually watching the video or getting into the ID-vs-reality debate,...

I think you just did.

My wife likes following these types of debates since it gets her blood boiling. She leans toward the ID side of things. I generally disappoint her attempts at starting a heated debate because I just don't understand why the two view point have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand the evidence for "reality" but I have come to accept that whoever it was that wrote and enforces the laws of physics could have written them to acheive his/her/its intelegent design.

Ben

[JDave]

QUOTE (neB @ Apr 15 2008, 07:21 AM)

... because I just don't understand why the two view point have to be mutually exclusive.

Ben, I have to say that I really appreciate your response here. A lot of heat and friction is produced by this debate, but people need to relax just a little bit and takes a few steps back. In doing so I think that one could argue that neither side is really threatened by the other.

Reminds me of the Olympics thread where it was argued that it isn't a specific government system that is the problem but the people implementing it. Likewise it is the people that OPPOSE each side of the ID/evolution debate that cause the friction and problems. Why are we so interested in proving people wrong, rather than searching for the truth? Isn't that what scientists and religious people are all supposed to do?

David

[eaolson]

QUOTE (neB @ Apr 15 2008, 09:21 AM)

I think you just did.

Well, maybe I couldn't resist just a *little* comment. Itty bitty. Wafer-thin.

QUOTE

I generally disappoint her attempts at starting a heated debate because I just don't understand why the two view point have to be mutually exclusive.

They can only be not-mutually-exclusive in a vaguely Deist sense because otherwise they are inherently contradictory. You just can't have the scientific fossil record and Adam riding a Tyrannosaurus Rex. You can't have Biblical astronomy and the Earth going around the Sun.

Maybe I'm a little over-sensitive because I'm a scientist by training and the stated goal of creationists is to overturn our very ability to do science.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (eaolson @ Apr 15 2008, 01:52 PM)

Well, maybe I couldn't resist just a *little* comment. Itty bitty. Wafer-thin.

...

Maybe I'm a little over-sensitive because I'm a scientist by training and the stated goal of creationists is to overturn our very ability to do science.

Newton is often considered "a scientist" or one of the "patron saints" of physics and math (depending on which camp the speaker is comfortable in), BUT

he concidered himself a "natural science philosopher" and wrote as extensively on the topic now concidered "religion" as he did math and science.

Similarly Einstien attributed qualities to the "prime mover" as exemplified by his classic reaction to quantum mechanics "God does not play dice."

I concider myself a scientist as well (studied physics in college) and was drawn to that filed by an interest in the world around me and the wonders found therein. Although I never studied at the graduate level, I was never able to answer very fundamental questions like "who/what enforces the laws of physics?" if I did not allow a deity into my model of the world. I was excited when working in the physics labs at Pitt to find out that there were real tenur-tracked proffesors that also were comfortable being on the leading edge of science and still allowing for the existence of a deity. I used to meet weekly with Dr David Snoke (Condensed matter physics) where we shared ideas of how we percieved the world.

I am not saying that everyone SHOULD beleive in a deity.

I am saying that it is OK to be a scientist and beleive in a deity.

Let me put forth one more idea for concideration (please)

1)

IF

the deity does exist

AND

the deity bent his implementation of the laws of physics to acheive his/her/its end goal (aka creation)

it would be a very bad idea to challenge him to a game of pool since he obviously has mastered the bank-shot.

I am sorry if any of the above may have offeneded any other readers. I just think that God is "way-cool" and can't resist the temptation to talk about him.

Ben

[orko]

QUOTE (neB @ Apr 15 2008, 11:23 AM)

I am not saying that everyone SHOULD beleive in a deity.

I am saying that it is OK to be a scientist and beleive in a deity.

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Ben Unfortunate that I won't be seeing you on the forums from now on... since you'll be expelled and all (according to the movie).

Disclaimer: My beliefs are my own. Saying my beliefs are wrong/right is judging the very core reason that I believe I exist. Who are you to make that judgement? God? I didn't think so.

No more from me. I'm going to my happy place now...

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (orko @ Apr 15 2008, 03:24 PM)

...Unfortunate that I won't be seeing you on the forums from now on... since you'll be expelled and all (according to the movie).

...

I'll watch my back for the machine's claw. :ninja:

Ben

[BrokenArrow]

QUOTE (neB @ Apr 15 2008, 02:23 PM)

I am not saying that everyone SHOULD beleive in a deity.

I am saying that it is OK to be a scientist and beleive in a deity.

Ben

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">or a LabVIEW programmer and beleive in a deity, as I choose to beleive

-Richard

[crelf]

QUOTE (BrokenArrow @ Apr 17 2008, 11:57 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">or a LabVIEW programmer and beleive in a deity, as I choose to beleive

You can have your god and eat it too!

[orko]

QUOTE (BrokenArrow @ Apr 17 2008, 08:57 AM)

or a LabVIEW programmer and beleive in a deity, as I choose to beleive

But beware the Anti-pasta!

[eaolson]

QUOTE (neB @ Apr 15 2008, 01:23 PM)

I am not saying that everyone SHOULD beleive in a deity.

I am saying that it is OK to be a scientist and beleive in a deity.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying it's not OK to claim "your data and your conclusions must be wrong because they conflict with my religious doctrine", as ID proponents do.

[JDave]

QUOTE (eaolson @ Apr 17 2008, 10:43 AM)

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying it's not OK to claim "your data and your conclusions must be wrong because they conflict with my religious doctrine", as ID proponents do.

Exactly. It is the attitude of "You are wrong" that causes problems. When someone tells me my code is wrong it pings a little bit. But when someone tells me my world view is wrong -- that hurts. So ID proponents stating that the science is fake, or evolution proponents stating that creationism is a fairy tale, does nothing but foment frustration if not bitterness.

We all view the world a bit differently, which makes us all a bit wrong. We all change our paradigm and world view as we progress through life, hopefully fixing our incorrect perceptions. So while they may be wrong, remember that we are too.

Do you have change for a paradigm?

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (eaolson @ Apr 17 2008, 01:43 PM)

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying it's not OK to claim "your data and your conclusions must be wrong because they conflict with my religious doctrine", as ID proponents do.

We would pulling a Galileo on you if we did. If I ever do so please feel free to jump all over me.

Re: JDave

:thumbup:

Ben

[Phillip Brooks]

I've been reading a blog called Good Math, Bad Math for some time.

Some (OK much) of the mathematics goes over my head, but the author also takes issue with some ID folks that are crackpots and he takes them to task. He also has some good categories such as programming, graph theory and this thread's primary subject Intelligent Design.

Also, there is a good (and geeky) discussion about Apophis