Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP

So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher should
use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other scientific theory,
has met an impasse, and cannot advance without invoking an intelligent
designer? How about the first lecture of an 8 week section? I still wait
with bated breath. You still the one that wants ID taught in school? How
about giving those poor teachers a little help?

OK:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe.


Here I disagree. Can you tell us about ANY philosophical construct
that can, in a meaningful way, address 'the queston of First Cause'?

Any philosophical system that begins with a first proposition
specifically about First Cause. That would include most forms
of Theism/Deism, some Mystical Schools, and some schools of Magic,
but not Science as understood today.

ISTM the closest any come to that are 'turtles, all the down',
essentially a recursive restatement of the question.

Go back and read my very first post in this whole thread 3 or
so weeks ago that suggests an inductive closure to the problem.



Do you mean this?

Begin Quote

c) By the recursive application of 3b) upon 3a) we reach an
*inductive*
conclusion:

The fact that *anything* exists (or appears to anyway)
suggests only a few explanations:

i) There is an ultimate authorship that transcends time,
space,
matter and energy - indeed all the physics we understand.
That is, we reach (via induction) the conclusion that if
*anything* exists, it suggests a (logically) single
point of authorship that is itself "eternal" - it exists
outside
the limitations of time, space, and physics.

ia) One variation of i) is that the recursion of authorship
is itself infinite. But this has the problem that it
cannot
explain how the whole business got started.



ENd quote


Because ia) is "turtles, all the way down" while i) is a 'first
turtle theory'. Saying the first turtle exists outside of the
limitations of time, space, and physics most certainly does not
address the "First Cause" issue of how that turtle came into
existance outside of the limitations of time, space, and physics.

On emight suppose that I conclude that discussion does not
adequately address the issue of "First Cause" because I do not
understand it. However, IMHO I reach that conclusion because
I _do_ understand it.


SNIP


It (ID) is enjoying
a resurgence in the 21st Century as serious questions about the
sufficiency of the materialist/reductionist assumptions of Science have
been raised. There is great resistence to this idea in traditional
Science.



Here we disagree. It is enjoying a resurgence as part of a
campaign by a small group of religious leaders, (who really
are 'High Priests') who are trying to regain some of the power
they lost over the latter half of the 20th century.

You are being paranoid. They are not trying to "regain power".

That statement is so wrong as to call into question your honesty.
Not only are they trying to regain power but they openly and
honestly have declared as much. The Moral Majority, Christian
Coalition and FOcus on the Family were created specifically,
if not exclusively for political purposes, their High Priests
do not hide that fact, nor should they.


To the
extent that ID has specific religious adherents, they are primarily in
the domain of Protestant Christianity which has no single church
hierarchy or power system. (Behe as a Roman Catholic appears as a
Scientist, but he is not sponsored by the RC church in yet another power
grabbing exercise.)

Non Sequitor. An interdenominational religious organization
is still a religous organization--even if it includes Catholics.

The vast majority of people in the ID camp - as far
as I can tell -
are in it as a way to harmonize Science with their
religious beliefs in a manner they believe to be honorable to both
disciplines. Notice that I am NOT saying that ID itself is that
harmonization (it isn't) rather that the people involved in supporting
ID see it as a component in finding that harmony. You may disagree with
them, but assuming power as their motive is largely specious.

Rubbish.

You write as if the concept of using people is alien in your
experience. You are not that naive. Of course there are people
who arrived at ID as a philosophical synergy of their religion
and science. Those people are not responsible for the resurgence
to which you refer as they are few and far between The people
responsible for the resurgence are their promoters.

Consider if you will just one site referenced by Mr Humplebacker:

http://www.origins.org/index.html

Did you know that mathemeticians who work on random number
generators are sinners? I'm pretty sure that if Von Neumann
really did say that he was making a joke. These people
don't seem to get it.

http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html

"From its inception Darwinism posed a challenge to Christian theology.
Darwinism threatened to undo the Church's understanding of creation,
and therewith her understanding of the origin of human life."

THOSE people are legion. A casual perusal of 'ID' advocates
fails to turn up _any_ who appear to be scientifically motivated.
'ID' is their version of Lysenkoism, an ostensibly scientific
school of theories that they chose to promote for purely religious
/political purposes.


There is great resistance to this process because it appears
to be backsliding into the Dark Ages. Upon further reflection
it STILL appears to be backsliding into the Dark Ages.

As noted before, you do not seem to be a particularly naive
person. Why not explore that hypothesis a bit?

Because it is paranoia unfounded in Reality. ..

To the contrary, you can Google for sites promoting 'ID'
or attacknig evolutionary biology and look to see what
else they promote or attack. You might find a site here
or there that does not include advocacy for criminalization
of homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research,
or access to birth control by minors, but I'l bet that at
least nine out of ten sites promoting 'ID' do so as
only one plank of their Religious/Political Agenda.

--

FF