Ooooh, that was cold. 
Probably the “fighting ignorance” part.
If you don’t believe in evolution then you indeed don’t believe in the methods of modern science. EVERYTHING in the scientific method supports and strengthens the argument for evolution. You don’t believe in evolution fine but don’t pretend you can do that and agree with the scientific method in other things or you’re just cherry picking.
Thanks, Chef, for pointing that out. I think I’ve been using hackles and heckles interchangeably most of my adult life without even thinking about it.
I love me, by core plank of modern science, I meant the Darwinian theory of evolution. I believe it is quite possible not to believe in this but to believe in other scientific theories.
But by saying this , you are in effect saying that you believe that the scientific method is valid sometimes(i.e. when it supports what you already believe), but it is invalid at other times. I’m sorry, but reality isn’t something that you can turn on and off like a lightswitch.
bod– I think I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that you didn’t believe in any core plank of modern science. It appears that you actually meant there is just one core plank (evolution theory) of modern science you don’t believe in.
You do understand that science comes upon and rejects or accepts all “planks” the same way, right? So why would you accept all the other utterly amazing stuff that science has shown us (light can bend???) but not accept evolution?
It’s simple really. I don’t find the evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution compelling. But it seems I’m a dying breed, so it’s probably nothing to be concerned about!
Does this mean you find the evidence for Creationism more compelling, and what might this compelling evidence be?
I think there is little or no evidence for young-earth “creationism”, but irreducible complexity provides decent evidence for intelligent design.
Bullshit. This thoroughly-refuted argument shows haven’t read a word of talk-origins, or listened to a single argument from the other side.
Besides which, the question was what you do believe in. Intelligent design without a creator, perhaps?
In Dawkins’ words, you’re moving out of the ‘ignorant’ camp, and into the ‘stupid’, ‘insane’ or ‘wicked’ camps.
I’ve read a fair bit in talkorigins, Lambchop, as well as all the opinions posted on the Evolution thread I started. Perhaps I didn’t make my current position clear: I believe in intelligent design by a creator (God), but not in a literal interpretation of the genealogical and genesis accounts in the Bible that lead some others to take a young earth position.
bodswood, as I asked in the other thread (and you ignored), it would be helpful if you said which parts of the Cosmological timeline you agree with:
[ul][li]The universe is around 14 billion years old, as evidenced by eg. the galactic red-shift and the Cosmic Microwave Background.[/li][li]**The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, as evidenced by eg. the presence of “long-lived” isotopes of uranium and radium but the absence of any shorter half-lives in the Earth’s crust.[/li][li]Rock strata can be dated using radiometric dating to form the geologic timescale (see also continental drift).[/li][li]Humans, apes, horses, gulls, tigers etc. (indeed almost any creature around today) only appear in the very, very top strata of the Earth, far above dinosaurs and far, far above trilobytes.[/ul][/li]
Do you agree that all of these statements are true beyond all reasonable doubt?
But it is in fact valid sometimes and invalid sometimes. It is not valid, for example, in proving that 1 + 1 = 2.
Bodswood, please try to understand one, simple thing. For a great many of us, if only those of us on this message board, acceptance of evolution is not incompatible with belief in intelligent design by a Creator. For you to imply, as you have, that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian is something which I, personally, find highly insulting. While you may indeed be English, I doubt you’re the Archbishop of Canterbury (among other things, I don’t think he’s in Hong Kong at the moment), which means you have no authority whatsoever to tell me what I can and cannot believe.
As for fighting ignorance, the ignorance I, myself, came here to fight is my own. I’d be willing to bet that’s true of a bunch of people here. I don’t have all the answers; at times, I have a lot more questions than answers. Here, I’ve found some of the answers I was looking for, some I wasn’t, and some I wish I’d never found, including one which told me that some people will see me as destined for an eternity of suffering despite over half a lifetime of devout Christian faith because I find the intricate dance of evolution far more satisfying, intriguing, and fun than the notion that God snapped His fingers.
CJ
What specific evidence for irreducible complexity do you find compelling? I’ve never seen any that was remotely compelling, but hey, maybe you can point me to some.
Daniel
It can prove something very close to that, close enough that I’d consider it a fair proof.
Hypothesis: for any unit x, if I put another unit x next to the first unit x and ask an observor to count the units of x, they will count 2 units of x.
Test: Experimenter places one apple on a table, then adds another apple to the table. Test subject is asked to count the apples.
Experimenter places one car in a parking lot, then adds another car to the parking lot. Test subject is asked to count the cars.
Experimenter quotes one passage from Shakespeare, then quotes another passage from Shakespeare. Test subject is asked to count the number of Shakespeare quotes.
Conclusion: humans tend to view one unit plus one unit as equalling two units.
bodswood, I’ll also ask you something similar: do you believe in most of modern mathematics, but just don’t believe all triangles have interior angles equal to 180 degrees? That’s basically what you’re saying: in order not to believe in evolution, you have to ignore either the mountains of evidence (which you claim not to do) or reject basic principles of reason, logic, etc.
Daniel
Why repeat the exact same questions here as in the GD thread?
Better to use this thread to simply call him an ignorant twit. 
Two things about that:
(1) The same sort of proof concludes that humans tend to believe in God, since the overwhelming majority do. Why is that not sufficient proof for you that God exists if your scientific test is sufficient proof that 1 + 1 = 2?
(2) Your test will not work with infants or people with certain brain damage or delusions, and yet, 1 + 1 is still equal to 2.
The point is that Peano’s mathematical proof is much simpler and utterly ironclad. Scientific investigation is simply not always the best way to determine truth. It is best suited for empirical truth, and even then there is some controversy. Some notable philosophers of science, for example, do not buy into Popper’s falsification theories. Science is a fine thing, but those who believe it to be a panacea or somehow superior to all other epistemologies are simply ignorant.
But assuming we were in a world where number had no meaning, but logic somehow did, the proof of the mathematical model would still “exist” to the extent that abstract concepts can exist, but would be useless.
For instance, I’m playing poker online right now. You don’t see me jumping up and down about how observation cannot prove a king beats a queen, even though the numbering system of cards is internally consistent.
Yet in another universe, the ordering of cards might be the entire basis of practical mathematics.
What’s my point? Mathematical “truth” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The entire basis of any given system may be completely irrelevant.
CJ, you write of people who will see you as destined for an eternity of suffering despite over half a lifetime of devout Christian faith because I find the intricate dance of evolution far more satisfying, intriguing, and fun than the notion that God snapped His fingers.
Well, I’m certainly not one of those people. I believe that when it is written that we were made in God’s image, God has delegated to us many roles: to forgive, to show mercy, to be courageous, as he is. But the one thing I believe God never delegated to us was judgement – because he couldn’t trust us with it. I mean judgement in terms of separating the sheep from the goats. Of course, we are meant to weigh arguments and to use the insights we gain by inspecting the fruits of others’ lives.
Liberal, what are the main objections to Popper’s falsification theories?
So… when we want to separate a herd of sheep and goats we have to ask god to send Moses down to part them? ;j
Honestly, if you’re willing to ignore all of the evidence supporting evolution (or at least “don’t feel compelled” by it), i’d feel safer with you not practicing science. Seriously. Especially biology. Religion and Science have their areas of applicability, and it’s best not to let them overlap. I won’t tell you that your beliefs are silly or stupid, so long as you don’t tell me that my science is wrong because it doesn’t fit in with what your church has told you to believe.
I will, however, call you a moronic asshat for deciding not to believe a fairly well proven theory because you were taught as a kid at Sunday School that there was some Intelligent Designer. You probably have never seen sufficient evidence that Electromagnetic Theory is right either, but you wouldn’t be giving your monitor that blank mindless stare without it.
Likewise for evolution.