Homosexuality is designed?

[ThePhy]

Bill, what's the deal? - especially with the latter.

These are very important issues in Mormon theology, but would be more appropriately dealt with in the Theology forum.

 

[ThePhy]

Mormonism belongs in the Theology Forum

Mormonism belongs in the Theology Forum

Ms, I have copied the core of the discussion of Mormonism between you and I into a new posting that I have appended on the end of the “Mormons” thread in the Religion forum. You seem intent on dwelling on Mormonism, so since it is apparent that you have no intent of trying to keep this forum on the subject of origins and science, I opted to make the change for you. My response to last post is there, where it more appropriately belongs.

 

[Mustard Seed]

To show that it is not science you need to show where it is factually wrong.

I don't need to show where it's wrong, per se, simply where it's assumptions reach a degree of unsubstantiamility similar to that of the existance of God. Plain and simple the fact of the matter is that evolution as the explanation for all diversity of life on earth is based and dependent on such assumptions and preconceptions and demands as much faith in unsubstantiable assumptions that ID places on the asssumption of a higher ordering power.

 

[noguru]

Design by what/who?

Science can have insight into design by physical entities

This doesn't follow. It wouldn't be dectecting design, but solving a question about who did designing. You cannot get to the point of asking who until you can first detect that design exists.

For intelligent design what I said is true. If the designer is not a physical entity, then it would not be possible to determine whether the design was due to an intelligent being or a phenomenon or law of nature. If the designer is a physical entity, then the designer would leave their "fingerprints" on the designed object. In the latter case enough must be known about the physical entity to give us an idea of what their "fingerprints" might look like.

In the SETI research program, assumptions about intelligent life are made. These assumptions are based upon what we already know about ourselves (the use of math, syntax, the senses..) and how these influence communication and the design.

Are you conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design?

No. Just design by an intelligent "non-physical" being.

Or are you saying we can detect design, but will only admit it if after the fact we find out who the designer is?

Refer to my previous responses.

But if you posit a non-physical being that is not within the bounds of the material universe, how exactly would science get insight into that?

It cannot. That is why neither those who posit ID, nor I, say a non-physical being is required to explain design.

Again refer to my previous responses.

If IDers or you want to posit a physical being as the designer that is fine. But I really don't think that is the goal of this hypotheses.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The Problem with Mormonism is that God on several occasions has had to edit the texts dictated to Smith by the Angel. The occasions being conflicts between the LDS and the U.S. govt. Specifically regarding polygamy and African people.

The same way God edited the texts of Christianity to allow the preaching and fellowshiping of Gentiles.

 

[ThePhy]

Need some specifics

Need some specifics

From MS:

Plain and simple the fact of the matter is that evolution as the explanation for all diversity of life on earth is based and dependent on such assumptions and preconceptions and demands as much faith in unsubstantiable assumptions that ID places on the asssumption of a higher ordering power.

How about less generalities. Can you list the specific “assumptions” and “preconceptions” that are needed for examining this issue? One list for evolution, one for divinely originated ID. Enough that we can see if your claim is sustainable.

 

[noguru]

In my theology God is in the "bounds of the material universe" that doesn't mean that science as we have it can empiricaly observe him. Things such as the precise location of an electron at any given moment or many elements of Super-string theory are things that are within the material universe but beyond the bounds of scientific observation.

But electrons and the phenomenon that super-string theory is attempting to explain are physical phenomenon or entities. Predictions about these things can be made, and we can test the accuracy of these predictions. Is God a physical phenomenon or entity, and can we make predictions about God that can be tested?

 

[Mustard Seed]

But electrons and the phenomenon that super-string theory is attempting to explain are physical phenomenon or entities. Predictions about these things can be made, and we can test the accuracy of these predictions. Is God a physical phenomenon or entity, and can we make predictions about God that can be tested?

Yep. Predictions can be made and tested. We're all in the middle of one big one right now. Here's a prediction made regarding the Christ. Every knee shall bow and every toungue confess that Jesus is the Christ. That's a prediciton that we'll all eventually see fulfilled. If you want current immediate empirical testability then I'm sorry. But you may never be able to prove or disprove string theory either. So if timing is something you have no patience for then testing anything on the fringes of this material world is not possible.

 

[noguru]

Yep. Predictions can be made and tested. We're all in the middle of one big one right now. Here's a prediction made regarding the Christ. Every knee shall bow and every toungue confess that Jesus is the Christ. That's a prediciton that we'll all eventually see fulfilled. If you want current immediate empirical testability then I'm sorry. But you may never be able to prove or disprove string theory either. So if timing is something you have no patience for then testing anything on the fringes of this material world is not possible.

MS, I don't have a need to test Christ. You are the one who has that need. I hope you don't think faith in Christ is a science.

I don't know much about string theory but if it is untestable then it is not science.

Also you didn't answer the other part of the question;

Is God a physical phenomenon or entity?

 

[Mustard Seed]

From MS: How about less generalities. Can you list the specific “assumptions” and “preconceptions” that are needed for examining this issue? One list for evolution, one for divinely originated ID. Enough that we can see if your claim is sustainable.

You're a scientist and you are not aware of what assumptions about the system that are needed to put down evolution as the source of all of life's diversity???

Or do you believe that the system proposed has no assumptions required?

 

[Mustard Seed]

MS, I don't have a need to test Christ. You are the one who has that need. I hope you don't think faith in Christ is a science.

I don't know much about string theory but if it is untestable then it is not science.

I never said I had to test Christ. I already have. You asked for a means of testing the divine and I gave you a possible scenerio.

I'd suggest looking into string theory. The dillemas it proposes are facinating when contrasted with theology and the dillemas it's encountered.

 

[noguru]

MS you might have missed this.

Is God a physical phenomenon or entity?

 

[noguru]

I never said I had to test Christ. I already have. You asked for a means of testing the divine and I gave you a possible scenerio.

I'd suggest looking into string theory. The dillemas it proposes are facinating when contrasted with theology and the dillemas it's encountered.

OK I'll look into it.

 

[ThePhy]

trying to shift the burden of proof

trying to shift the burden of proof

From MS:

You're a scientist and you are not aware of what assumptions about the system that are needed to put down evolution as the source of all of life's diversity???

Or do you believe that the system proposed has no assumptions required?

You, not I, made the assertion about assumptions. Whether or not I know them is not the question. You made the claim, and I think you are bluffing, you can’t itemize the things your statement relies on.

 

[Mustard Seed]

MS you might have missed this.

Is God a physical phenomenon or entity?

In LDS theology yes.

 

[Mustard Seed]

From MS: You, not I, made the assertion about assumptions. Whether or not I know them is not the question. You made the claim, and I think you are bluffing, you can’t itemize the things your statement relies on.

You're saying that I'm bluffing that there are assumptions made in scientific theories??? I thought that was a given. That's why they put all the disclaimers on the physics tests they gave in High School like "assume that this system is removed from the universe".

If you're going to advocate the idea that all life came from a single happenchance collision of molecules then you have to first off assume such a chance meeting, at some point in the universes history (depending on whether you see the preexisting 'seeds' for such items as already existing here on earth, in which case you'd need to present a way in which they got here and how they were initialy created, wherever that may have been, or whether you see them as for some reason defying probability on the scale of grandure of the divine). So I suppose that's an assumption that has to be made as it hasn't been proven by science.

You also have to assume that many more such happenstance occurances on a molecular and macro scale happened consistantly enough to produce changes on a scale never demonstraited in any lab or breeding expirement yet produced.

I'll be looking into how to enunciate, as clearly as possible for my limited scientific ventures, additional assumptions to the system as it's clear that ThePhy is playing denial on the need for assumptions on a macro scale in scientific theories.

 

[Mustard Seed]

OK I'll look into it.

It's divided the Physics community as there's a group that seems preocupied with the theoretical implications and possibilities while the more traditional seem to stand apart and in some ways scoff at studying a mathematical construct that may never prove to be verifiable empiricaly.

I wonder where the resident Theoretical Physicist falls in this issue.

 

[noguru]

It's divided the Physics community as there's a group that seems preocupied with the theoretical implications and possibilities while the more traditional seem to stand apart and in some ways scoff at studying a mathematical construct that may never prove to be verifiable empiricaly.

I wonder where the resident Theoretical Physicist falls in this issue.

I do as well. Will you make a thread asking ThePhy about his views on this?

 

[ThePhy]

Hanging by a string

Hanging by a string

I do as well. Will you make a thread asking ThePhy about his views on this?

No need for a new thread (Unless Knight reprimands me again for talking about something other than the thread title, in which case I am abandoning this thread).

Anyway, I think the "scoffing" is more a portrayal put forth by the popular media than a common attitude in the science community. I am excited to watch string theory, even knowing that it lies on the fringes of testable science right now. Sure it may dead end, but that it itself is information, and there is a wealth of new mathematics and ideas that have already spawned from the work.

Want my bet? Some of the theoretical numbers that have come out have been perfect fits to explain other things that previously were anomalies. Call it coincidence, I don't think so. They are on to something.

 

[Mustard Seed]

No need for a new thread (Unless Knight reprimands me again for talking about something other than the thread title, in which case I am abandoning this thread).

Anyway, I think the "scoffing" is more a portrayal put forth by the popular media than a common attitude in the science community. I am excited to watch string theory, even knowing that it lies on the fringes of testable science right now. Sure it may dead end, but that it itself is information, and there is a wealth of new mathematics and ideas that have already spawned from the work.

Want my bet? Some of the theoretical numbers that have come out have been perfect fits to explain other things that previously were anomalies. Call it coincidence, I don't think so. They are on to something.

Everything else aside I appreciate that. I'd been wondering for sometime what your stand was. Thanks.