Redstate

I see evolution as a fact of the world. Whether or not something was involved with the evolution, whether directly or indirectly, is another matter entirely. The way I see it, [insert-god-here], most likely created the Big Bang, and that is how the universe was born. After that, he/she/it may have had varying degrees of influence on whatever happened as eons past. I completely reject the notion that the homo sapien is inherently special in this universe. If one looks at our position within our own galaxy, nevermind our galaxy cluster or even the universe itself, one would realize we are less than the equivalent of one molecule of sand of all the beaches of the Earth. There most definitely is intelligent life out there somewhere, and it wouldn't debunk God or any other deity if we made contact with them. Earth is just a "pale blue dot" to quote an article I read a little over a year ago.

I think for her, insistence on creationism is more of a declaration of faith than a philosophical guide; e.g., she's not going to reject out of hand some research project on enzyme homology which carries the implicit premise that the bacterial and human enzyme diverged from a common ancestor. In other words, the conclusions of evolution are accepted, but not the theory itself.

This is true for many, many people in the US.  They accept micro-evolution and science findings, but do not let them influence any personal beliefs about God that science may intersect with.  I have an idea that there will never be a common ground really and that if there was an effort to educate the other to form a common ground the two sides would talk past each other using much of the same terminology.

I've noticed a trend among some folks to combine the concept of "young earth creation" and "intellegent design" together.  All this talk (started by DS) compelled me to do my own digging into this, to see how closely integrated into each other they are.  So I went to the grail of internet research, wikipedia to look up ID.  Rather than post any text here, I'll just toss out the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

While I think its probably safe to say that YEC folks are most certainly proponents of ID, in that "God Created the..." statements, it is not true that all ID people are subscribers to YEC.

I tend (and only tend by a small margin) to say that ID is probably not science in its purest form, but then again, I'd also say that the Big Bang theory is not science in its purest form, either.  But I'm not terribly interested in debating the merits of ID over Ev or vice versa, but rather pose the question (rhetorically, of course) of why ID has even gained any traction at all as a "scientific" study.

Science and religion exist to answer two separate questions.  Science exists to answer the "HOW" questions.  Religion exists to answer the "WHY" questions.  

Here's where I think things have gotten out of sorts.  Evolutionists have taken to trying to answer the "why" questions in ways that shrouds their faith in the language of science, or they spout off innate statements like "evolution disproves the Bible"

In looking back over the last 80 years, since the scopes trial, other than a few YEC groups like the Watchtower society, there have been few people who have attempted to fight evolution, until the last decade or so, when Intellegent Design became more pronounced, but my point is that ID is a movement originating out of a need to counter the attempt by some evolutionists to answer the "WHY" questions.  Far be it from me to deny evolutionists their faith based opinions on the "WHY" questions, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but just as they are loathe to have Christians passing along their creed, I'm equally loathe to them passing along their creed with a scientific veneer, if they attempt to package a "why" answer within the scientific study of evolution.  

I tend (and only tend by a small margin) to say that ID is probably not science in its purest form, but then again, I'd also say that the Big Bang theory is not science in its purest form, either. But I'm not terribly interested in debating the merits of ID over Ev or vice versa, but rather pose the question (rhetorically, of course) of why ID has even gained any traction at all as a "scientific" study.

It's probably correct that you placed quotes around "scientific" because it doesn't have much basis in testable science. As you mention, neither does cosmology. However, cosmological theories have the virtue of being testable, by observing remnants, etc. There are a number of ways to attack a cosmological theory and the best way is to kick the feet out from under whatever assumptions have been made by the theorists. The beginning (if there was one) of the observable universe will never been seen directly, but then again, neither will a neutrino. Does that disqualify anything beyond mechanics, observable by the eye, from your concept of "science in its purest form"?

ID basically puts itself outside of testability by asserting that a key factor is inherently unknowable, from a scientific point of view, if not a philosophical one. I'm a physics guy, not biological sciences, but suggesting a designer (Designer?) with supernatural capacities is a greater leap that relying upon a historical coincidence with long odds.

...ID is a movement originating out of a need to counter the attempt by some evolutionists to answer the "WHY" questions.

I don't understand this. Who are you refering to as "evolutionists"? Scientists whose work rely upon evolution? Any scientist who suggests a moral  or ethical imperative/narrative as a result of their work is stepping away from their role as a scientist to express an opinion. The division between the two should be understood, foremost by scientists themselves. I'm curious about where you suggest scientists may be tackling a "WHY" question.

Evolution doesn't "disprove the Bible", exactly. It does, however, reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. A scientific understanding in general (including evolution) can complicate Christian belief. After all, belief in miraculous happenings such as seas parting, resurrections, etc, can be difficult to reconcile with a Universe of inviolable laws. As mentioned previously in this thread, Christians must be choosy about the science they accept, in order to keep the essential dogma of their faith intact. Like the ID folks, and for that matter, the YEC people too, they must exist in a world where the observable laws may be violated at something's (Something's?) will. That's inherently unscientific.

Maybe that's why they get grouped together?

ID basically puts itself outside of testability by asserting that a key factor is inherently unknowable

That's an interesting way to phrase that, especially for a "physics guy," because it raises the following pointless question:

Does there exist a thing with the following properties:
• There is one of it.
• There can only be one of it.
• Everything that exists is part of it.
• It exists outside of space-time.
• It is hidden behind an impenetrable wall of uncertainty.

Let me hasten to add that I am not a "physics guy." But so far as I can determine, such a thing is known to exist.

OK, now I am leaving science and just having fun. Although I am not a particularly religious person, I was raised as one and I cannot help but notice that that list of properties sounds just like a third-grade catechism. ("There is one God, everywhere-at-once and eternal"). I also can't help but notice that if I were God, and I wanted to hide, the Uncertainty Principle is the perfect thing to hide behind. The humans would know something was there, but they would never be able to tell if it were alive, or sentient, or what. From this I deduce that if there is a God, it has a sense of humor. That's about as far as I've gotten with my theological ruminations, but it's far enough.

But so far as I can determine, such a thing is known to exist.

I'm supposing the thing to which you're referring is the singularity in Big Bang theory? If so, I'd hesitate to use the word "known". There is still a lot of work to be done before anyone can claim to have nailed down a comprehensive description. The "Big Bang" got currency because it predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation, but if something else comes along that describes things more accurately...out it goes.

And that's the thing about ID: I'm unclear on how they can produce anything testable. Heck, if string theory doesn't produce a prediction or two in the near future, that'll get the boot too.

As for your ruminations, if there is a deity, I'll agree on the sense of humor. If only there was a religion based on that.

ID: I'm unclear on how they can produce anything testable.

About the only way I can think of is via information theory. It might happen that someone derives a theorem that proves that natural selection "could not have gotten here from there," and that the only way "here" could have happened is via the introduction of new information from outside the system at Step 17 (or wherever).

I'm not suggesting anyone will ever do that, only that it provides a path by which such a proof might occur.

string is being suplanted by M theory last I checked.

The math seems to hold up, and if what I read is not jumbled up in my head... they can work it all the way back to not just the bang, but before the bang.

two cultures, then you really have two nations.  And that ain't a ditch, but a DMZ.

And you are right, it is going to be a wedge... and it is going to peel a lot of voters.  The exact number of which is going to be determined by what is said and how it is said by certain key members of the socially conservative crowd.

And that doesn't just go for on TV.. it also will be impacted by what the rank and file say on places like this and a lot of more "mixed" communities online.

and unfortuantely, I'm going to be testing equpiment at sea until Tuesday and can't comment on it.  I would therefore make the following brief points before I sleep:

1. don't limit the topic to creationism.  There are many scientific issues that certain elements of the right have distanced themselves from that have featured notably here at RS.  The closest to my field (turbulence) is global climate change.  There are others. People keep repeating talking points that are just wrong.  
   
2. CMutant is quite correct in pointing out there are forces on the far left that are anti-science as well.  In fact, I'd say that, judging from anectodal heresay from older scientists, thats why the recent dramatic trend of scientists and journals (nature, physics today, and science all come to mind) of moving left is RECENT, e.g. 8-12 years.  This, as I say is anecodtal, I could be wrong.  I don't think I am.
   
3. This being that the left crazies, the anti-technologists, really have no power.  The only battle they won in the US was the fight against nuclear power, and in many regards, they didn't win that fight so much based upon their push, but on the fact that nuclear power wasn't really economically competitive with oil in the 70s.  If I was trying to develop GM foods in Germany, for example, I might feel differently, but I'm not, I'm doing turbulence research in the US today, fundemental stuff on how the oceans and atmospheres mix, and there are things that we know that people here would pretend we don't.
   
4. There is a incredible lack of understanding, on both sides, but particularly the right, of the piss-poor education in science in the US right now, and they are IMO only making things worse with the relgious science mix.  I know its not as bad in the life sciences (CMutant's world) but when I was a physics grad student, about 80% of the students were Chinese (mainland) and Indian.  The reason being that they had fundemental mathematical training years ahead of what American students, even the best students, had.  I hear plenty of TALK about 'american inovation' on these boards.  I see very little of the WALK.  My generation of scientists is considerably smaller than my fathers, per capita, and many of them are transplants.  More importantly, a large fraction of those students return to their home countries with Ph.Ds.  http://www.aip.org/fyi/2001/021.html
   

And, I might add, only in a VERY few households could homeschooling previde the answer.  The brightest kids need to graduate high school having taken things like this: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~yakov/Geometry/

and this:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~voronov/18.276/

and then they will be equal to the students coming to US universities in the hard sciences.  "Calculus with calculator" courses.. OUT.

Thats my starting point for how you can bring scientists back into the GOP.  The direction its headed ATM, good luck.

Isn't M just a more refined "unified" string theory with an extra dimension?

From what I can remember, the soon-to-be-operational LHC will possibly provide some sort of answers concerning supersymmetry (Higgs bosons), gravitron features, etc-- which I believe would have an effect one way or the other on M (gravitational "leakage" into smaller dimensions would mean it would be possible to create tiny black holes with relative ease.)

Graviton not gravitron.  

specially after this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006664.php

I'm glad that many on the Right realize how anti-scientific their positions have become.

But I wonder, would your friend teach creationism?

Or advocate not teaching evolution?

on the merits of theories and the merits of science to which many theories spring to describe the "existence of man" is a chapter that may never be completed and the crux of what the author seems to be saying in many ways. That is the dilemma, unfortunately.

So what do we have left when we argue these merits? Faith & Science. Two things that are seperate, will remain seperate, and will always be seperate.

In it's most rudimentary form, my faith is personal. My faith tells me that God exist and that belief is more profound than my trust in science. Overall however, I accept that sceince will unravel most mysteries of the specifics that people argue over in theology which to me is an endeavor in cranial entertainment to stretch the brain out.

I honestly have absolutely no earthly idea if God spread out one piece of DNA that eventually detonated into an explosion of life so profound that the most pre-eminent minds on our planet have yet to graspe even the most fundemantal properties of it.

Or if he just showed up one day and made it all. I have my guesses and personal beliefs.

But I'll tell you what, I'll ask him when I see him, and get back to you on that.

This is where a political party should leave things.  Your personal beliefs should remain personal.

It's pretty arrogant for anyone who accepts the existance of a supreme being to assume that they have the inside scoop on how that supreme being made the universe.  

for science majors is: Where are the jobs?

I was a physics graduate back in 92 at the U of Mich. In my last two years of college I began to hear the ominous refrain that there were no jobs out there for us (rather contrary to the predictions in the 80s of a looming scientist shortage). Now, my life at that point was upended by two tumults, my father's death and a disastrous relationship, so my decision not to continue to PhD status but to go into IT work instead had several factors behind it. But my acquaintance with bitter 30-something physics PhD trapped in unending post-doc sheol played a big part too.

I think it's just a high-volume trading period in the marketplace of ideas (to really stretch a metaphor).  Right now, science is yet again testing the limits of the worldview of religious people.  Biotechnology works and its basis is the theory of evolution.  You can only stare into the face of a working technology for so long before you simply must begin to accept the underlying theories.

This is why science always beats out religion in these fights: religion has no engineering applications.

As for losing votes, there are plenty of reasons for that.  The view-point subsidition of Christianity is disturbing enough.  But the medicare and other entitlement subsidization is even moreso.  Perhaps if the Republicans got around to reducing the size of government and getting it off our backs - you know, the platform they've been running on since Reagan - they might get some more votes.

Your post indicates that you appear to be jumping to the illogical (IMO) conclusion that personal equals private, and that's just not the case.

Is faith a personal thing?  We in America (irrespective of political orientation) typically hold to that view, which IMO is really a pretty good thing.  But never has there been in American life a requirement to keep our religious views private.  Well, except for the last few years, and then the impetus for this move has been from a group that I would call secular fundamentalists, who's goals IMO is to rid public life of any religious expressions, so that in the public marketplace of ideas theirs are the only views being pandered.

Even  Pope John Paul II said there is no conflict between Evolution and Creationism.

what he really said, is it. This is what was said.