Steve Peterson wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Australopithecus scobis wrote:


On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:



The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that
matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and
perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated.
Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief
system.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that
to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal.
This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in
principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.


WABOS. Are you teaching Philosopy of Science now? Where do you get this
so-called FPOS? Look here http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm, for what
John Stuart Mill says about the principles and structure of science. One of
the big problems of this discussion is you invent your own epistemology and
then accuse others of not playing by your rules. There is a well developed
structure and nomenclature available, developed by better minds than yours,
and an immense body of knowledge that is the basis of the disciplines of
science. Catch up before you try to overthrow.



In the absence of a coherent counter-argument, attack the veracity of
your debating partner, eh? That's always easier than responding to
the question as posed I guess ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
...
It's only "biased" in your belief system---but as noted elsewhere, that
it isn't "fair" isn't the proper question.


It is biased as I noted earlier. Science classes do teach some
matters of faith. Secular faith, i.e. life and the universe developed
on it's own, we just don't know how yet.


Precisely...and you're proposing to teach that your side does
know--


Wrong. You don't even know what my view is, although I've
expressed it many times.


which it doesn't and doesn't have scientific evidence to support
the argument that it does. Ergo, it is not science and should
therefore, not be taught as science.


"Science" discusses many things. In teaching, the subject of origins
does come up and it's misleading to teach and/or leave the impression
that it started on it's own. We don't know that. Science doesn't know
that. You don't know that. Many are asking for fairness in teaching.
And since they are footing the bill, it's only fair.



The question of what and where religion should be taught is a totally
separate issue as well as is philosophy.


See above.



The proper question is
whether the science curriculum is the best science known at the time _to
science_. Anything less is a disservice to the students.


Yes, that was my point.


But you apparently want to force teach


What does force teach mean? As opposed to what?


a curriculum that isn't the best
science we presently know in order to promote a particular
non-scientific philosophical bent.


There isn't a best or worst scientific answer to origins. But it
sounds like you only want the one you like taught.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...


"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.



...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.



AHA! Thus "the slip"...at least you don't need to be reprogrammed.

You seem to have made a pretty good representation that your leanings
tend to support bringing the ID "argument" into the classroom...

I have and I do. But it's not because I accept the claims of ID
prima facia. It's because I think ID's challenge to the philosophy
of science and its first propositions of knowlege are worth
showing to students. Durable science will not be threatened by doing so.

I think your other responses however, indicate you have a pretty poor
understanding of "how science works" that leads to what is, imo, an
incorrect conclusion about that status of ID as an alternative in the
science curriculum.

As social phenomenon and philosophy it has some place, but not in
science other than an "obtw, there are those who think this is a crock
but they're misguided".

George wrote:

"FUll Citizen" wrote in message
...
When churches start paying taxes I'll agree that they are not funded
via tax dollars. Any organization that takes in money and doesn't pay
taxes on that money partially exists on the backs of taxpayers.

You feel the same way about PBS, NAACP, NOW, ... Habitat for Humanity?

NRA?

"Renata"
Speaking of the educational system (and without reading the ENTIRE
thread)...


There's nothing like a fool stepping forward to introduce himself.



My theory is that ole Fred went to schools that had a pretty good
foundation in science, whereas ole Fletis probably didn't.


My theory is that you didn't go to school, period.



You want your kids to learn about God in school, send them to a
private religious institution. Really.


If we let parents decide where to spend their money that would
certainly happen more frequently but you missed the point, apparently
since you didn't feel it was necessary to read what you were responding to.



Part of my basis for these statements is my background - went to
Catholic school for 12 years (horrors! ;-) We learned science kinda
stuff in the vaious science classes (you know, chemistry, physics,
biology, etc.). Then, the idea of an intelligent designer as a
possible explanation for the wonders and origins of the universe was
given in RELIGION class. 'Cause, you can't TEST the idea of ID using
the scientific method (a kinda fundamental requirement of SCIENCE).


Well, I'm glad they mentioned the possibility of an intelligent designer
somewhere in your Catholic school and maybe they did refuse to
answer any question regarding origins in science class but that isn't
universally true in public education.



On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:18:24 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


No, that isn't the issue. My argument has been on the biased
educational system, not whether we should be allowed to have
personal beliefs or demanding that God is declared real by the
scientific community.

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| George (in ) said:
||
||| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
||| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
||| than someone of faith should question science.
||
|| I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a
|| scientist should question *everything* and that *everyone* should
|| question science.
|
| That depends on what you mean by "question science". If you mean
| continually test the present hypotheses and prediction of current
| science, certainly--and good science does precisely that. If you
| mean question science in the sense of the IDers and Creationists
| that "Science" is fundamentally flawed in asserting the existence
| of natural processes from the very beginning, then no.

Oops! Sorry to have been ambiguous. I intended the first sense; and
meant "question" to denote "conduct rational, complete, and critical
inquiry" rather than "deny" - in both instances.

I wish I were a better wordsmith.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| These foundational axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or
| disproven. In the case of science, several axioms are obvious:

ITYM "Lemma" rather than "axiom".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

You don't agree w/ what?

Einstein was Jewish, therefore one must presume most of his thinking was
strongly influenced by that tradition and background. His involvement
w/ the establishment of Israel certainly would not contradict that
hypothesis.

But he spoke on the subject. We don't need to guess.


True...but you, imo, used what he wrote/spoke to promote a position that
I don't believe he actually held (or would hold now if he were still
here)...


Well, he called the design intelligent. What do you propose that he was
trying to say?


How does any of what you wrote negate the thought of Einstein looking
for underlying physical principles which are invariate over time and
space? That is, in fact, what he spent his career looking for...


I never suggested otherwise. Where do you get the science or god
dichotomy? My purpose in bringing up Einstein was that it need not
be an either or scenario.

I never said dichotomy either...I did suggest there's a difference in
what I think you're trying to use what he (and other prominent early
scientists as welll) said to represent as opposed to what they actually
meant/said/believed.

IOW, I think Einstein was comfortable w/ the thought that there could
well have been an intelligence behind the initial event, but I have
never seen anything in his writings that implies to me that for an iota
he thought there was anything but a physical process in play after
that...


I didn't say that he did.


it would, imo, totally negate the idea of there even being a
"unified theory" if that were not the case.

Are you saying that no ID believing scientist believes there may
be a unified theory?

Hello,

I think that there is another alternative here.

We do not know exactly what the universe is made of and what are the
fundamentall law (althrough they are theory such as string theory that try
to explain the why of the laws that we observe and are designed ultimately
to describe why the universe ended up being as we can observe it without
going through axiomatic definition).

Imagine for an instant that the rules of the universe do allow human phyche
to influence the reality (not impossible per the current knowledge althrough
improbable).
then having one side impose their vision on the rest of the word would
actually CHANGE it.
for example, forcing/convincing the rest of the word to beleive in "their
God" would actually spawn the said god in existance WITH ALL THE PROPERTY
encompased in him!
If all the human beleived that the past was in a certain way, then reality
would ALIGN with that beleif and the past would be as beleived!

now, if the universe we do live in actually is like that, it does make sense
to convince the rest of the sentient being to think your way as it would
make the word be your way...

regards, cyrille

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"


...

As for your "fairness" statement, there is nothing fair about the so
called
"intelligent design" campaign. It is religious fundamentalism and
evangelism
trying to force it's way into the arena of public education.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

Fair 'nuff.


Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here.

I was talking about the education of science, not science itself.


It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and
gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".

Then you misinterpreted the viewpoint. When you teach that we
crawled out of the mud it isn't science either. Many people want
their tax monies spent with some consideration to them instead
of just a biased secular view. That would be fair to the unbiased mind.

What is taught is the best _scientific_ understanding of how things
happened.

That's not true. Many errors are found in school textbooks,
especially in the science field. Students often learn what the teacher
learned.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=17966
A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001
found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by
85
percent of the students in the country.

You're again letting your theology get in the way of the
issue. If you want a theological being or basis for the non-scientific
portion, that's fine. The point is, that is theology and/or
philosophy,
not science.

It isn't quite that simple. If you teach kids that there must be some
kind
of natural answer to life and the universe, we just don't know it yet,
you are tilting the table, offering skewed reasoning and doing them a
disservice. The matter of origins will and does naturally come up in
science classes, saying that many leading scientists see evidence
of intelligent design and many don't isn't preaching theology.

It was relevent to John's comment about evolutionists knocking
on church doors.


Not really. The point was only on actions, not numbers.

Yes, really. The assumption he made was a common error in
that one either believes in science (whatever that means) or
they embrace religion but they can't do both.

Science is the study. To exclude ID (unfairly) when many scientists
do see evidence of it isn't science either. But as you may well know
science isn't limited to what has been proven categorically.

Back to this specious "fair" argument again...we dealt w/ that already.


No, you tried to dismiss it.

The point is that once you bring in this extra-terristrial, there is no
science left--it's now magic.

There doesn't need to be a conflict between an intelligent designer
and science. I think secularists are overreacting.

And, of course, they think the ID'ers and creationists are overreacting
in the other direction.

The problem is the IDers are trying to force the removal of best
practice current science from the educational system in favor of
pseudo-science.

The thing I always think of is "what if when they all get to their final
reward they discover it all did come from "the Big Bang" and that is how
it was chosen to do Creation?" What a waste of effort on something that
didn't really matter while they could have been doing something useful
and perhaps even important! OTOH, if the other side turns out wrong, so
what? They'll have a pretty useful description of how it all worked
that will have produced some useful insights into biological processes
that will have indirectly, at the very least, influenced medicine, etc.

Maybe in the end, science will admit
defeat in understanding (I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose) and
the only rational explanation will turn out to be the supernatural. If
so, it bodes ill for our ability to progress much further in the
biological sciences as everything we think we understand will have been
shown to have been just a fluke of the point in time and point of
reference which can change at any time when this external power decides
to change the ground rules. As you see, that doesn't make any sense,
but it is the logical conclusion of demanding something other than
natural processes as what science deals with.

I don't see any logic in that statement. Scientists do change prevailing
views from time to time as more is learned. How that excludes an
external power or suggests that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power escapes me.

That's a problem then...if one is forced to resort to some supernatural
being as intervening to explain any physical process, then there is by
definition of the word "supernatural" a complete loss of
predictibility. Ergo, one now no longer has a science since the
cosmological principle has been violated.

How it suggests "that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power" lies in the presumption of the
paragraph--being forced to admit defeat in understanding implies that one
reaches a point in which scientific exploration has reached a complete
and utter impasse which would imply that at a very fundamental level one
has come to a point at which there would be results which are not
consistent w/ nature and those points are impossible to be resolved. In
that case, one has a conundrum that leads to the inability to predict
anything for sure since the very basis has been shown to be to be
"violatable" in some instance.

That there are areas in which we still lack complete understanding is a
totally different concept than the concept of throwing up one's hands
and saying "we don't know" in the sense that it is unknowable and that
some all powerful force unrestricted to using "natural" forces caused an
event.

The references the "why" as opposed to "how" questions are rightly left
to some explanation beyond the physical sciences and, in my reading of
Einstein, Hawking, et al., it is in that context alone that they invoke
the concept of a Deity.

In the end, it's a question of whether your side can ever manage to get
over the overreacting to what science says and means and quit feeling
threatened in ones' position in the world on the basis of some
theoretical explanation that is our best effort to understand the "how"
of how the universe "ticks".

If you can ever generate a coherent and complete explanation that stands
up to peer review on details, then you may even contribute something to
the argument, but as already noted, as long as there is a reliance on
the supernatural for intervention after the initial event, then you've
left the scientific realm.

It's been at least a rational discourse, but needs to come to an end in
r.w so I'll close w/ this.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ...

Citation?

Yes, I did.

..."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..."


As pointed out elsewhere, that's not the same thing.


I don't know who pointed it out but they were wrong.
I don't know how you can spin his words to mean anything but.


See my other response...in short I think it is you and your side who
"spin" the words out of their context to mean something other than what
was actually said or meant.


Please tell us what Einstein was struggling to say then.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Australopithecus scobis wrote:


On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:



The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal. This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.


The problem w/ this viewpoint is that you're claiming a priori that
there isn't a scientific basis. This, of course, negates there even
being "science".

Not exactly. I am only saying that science has an epistemology that is
no more verifiable in its starting points than any other epistemology.
One way we check the merits of our starting points is in where they lead
us. By that measure, Science is a huge success - it has demonstrated
considerable *utility* value. But that doesn't prove it's
epistemological starting points and it doesn't invalidate other
epistemologies. It just says that the assumptions of Science have
utility value *over some domain*.

The problem here is that people who are schooled in Science and
Mathematics (I am among them, BTW) have a natural tendency to elevate
the Reason-Empiricist school of thinking as being "better" than all
other epistemologies. This is not warranted. Reason has real limits,
even in the world we can observe. In fact, the very calculus of Reason -
logic - is innately limited by it's nature. By Godel's Incompleteness
Theorems, we know that you cannot reach all true statements in a formal
logical system, solely from that system's starting propositions and
logic alone. i.e., Logic is "incomplete". This has a pretty important
consequence philosophically - if the very calculus of Reason cannot get
us to all true statements in a given system, it suggests we ask the
question, "Then how *do* we get to those true statements?" Now, I don't
know the answer to that question, but I do know that maintaing a sort of
High Priestly "My way is the best one and no one dare question it..."
stance is not productive...




As noted before, it is possible that "science" may reach a point at
which it _is_ forced to "throw up its proverbial hands" and say any
further understanding is clearly totally impossible. I don't think that

I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical foundation
is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to throw up its
hands now.

will happen, but it is possible. If so, as I've noted before, it will
cause great havoc as we will have shown that everything we do is pure
luck and subject to complete failure at any point since there will have
been shown to be no basis for any physical law whatsoever.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Duane Bozarth wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...



"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.




...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.



AHA! Thus "the slip"...at least you don't need to be reprogrammed.

You seem to have made a pretty good representation that your leanings
tend to support bringing the ID "argument" into the classroom...

I have and I do. But it's not because I accept the claims of ID
prima facia. It's because I think ID's challenge to the philosophy
of science and its first propositions of knowlege are worth
showing to students. Durable science will not be threatened by doing so.


I think your other responses however, indicate you have a pretty poor
understanding of "how science works" that leads to what is, imo, an
incorrect conclusion about that status of ID as an alternative in the
science curriculum.

And I think you: a) Vastly underestimate my understanding of Science
and its methods and b) Still don't get that ID does not propose
to be an "alternative" to Science. It proposes to change some
assumptions in the philosophy of Science. No IDer I have read thus far
suggests that Science is inherently wrong or useless, nor do they
suggest they have some "alternative to Science". They have some
alternative *philsophical starting points to Science* which they
attempt to justify by means of some of the known Science today.


As social phenomenon and philosophy it has some place, but not in
science other than an "obtw, there are those who think this is a crock
but they're misguided".


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

....

2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, ...

I don't see how you can seriously use the phrase "High Priests of
Science" and not that your proposition is a "throwback to an
anti-rational religion" basis for science. That's been my point all
along--bringing in a supernatural is not science by definition. It is
inherently anti-rational as it throws in a supernatural
"do-whatever/whenever" force that defies rational explanation.



... many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).

OTOH, many aren't but still don't think ID makes any sense...

Duane Bozarth wrote:

George wrote:

"FUll Citizen" wrote in message
. ..

When churches start paying taxes I'll agree that they are not funded
via tax dollars. Any organization that takes in money and doesn't pay
taxes on that money partially exists on the backs of taxpayers.

You feel the same way about PBS, NAACP, NOW, ... Habitat for Humanity?


NRA?

The NRA is not tax-exempt. It is a dues-paying membership society.
When you pay your dues, you do not get to write them off as charitable
contributions. The NRA also does not take any government (tax) money
AFAIK. IOW, it is a *private* society that started out to promote
marksmanship among citizens and ended up having to also become a
political pressure group in reaction to those who would deny citizens
their right to keep and bear arms ...

(The is the ability to make the NRA the beneficiary of a tax advantaged
trust when you die, but I don't know much about it and I do not believe
it is remarkable in any way.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"justme"
"Fletis Humplebacker"
"justme"

Your posts show a remarkable level of ignorance about even grade school
science. Perhaps you should do a little reading before you spout any
more nonsense. Assuming of course that you aren't so desperate for
attention that even ridicule from your betters is a welcome gift.


Let us know if you ever stray beyond the ridicule department.


When people are beneath contempt, ridicule is about all that's left.


I'm suggesting that's all you ever had.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

You don't agree w/ what?

Einstein was Jewish, therefore one must presume most of his thinking was
strongly influenced by that tradition and background. His involvement
w/ the establishment of Israel certainly would not contradict that
hypothesis.

But he spoke on the subject. We don't need to guess.

True...but you, imo, used what he wrote/spoke to promote a position that
I don't believe he actually held (or would hold now if he were still
here)...

Well, he called the design intelligent. What do you propose that he was
trying to say?

How does any of what you wrote negate the thought of Einstein looking
for underlying physical principles which are invariate over time and
space? That is, in fact, what he spent his career looking for...

I never suggested otherwise. Where do you get the science or god
dichotomy? My purpose in bringing up Einstein was that it need not
be an either or scenario.

I never said dichotomy either...I did suggest there's a difference in
what I think you're trying to use what he (and other prominent early
scientists as welll) said to represent as opposed to what they actually
meant/said/believed.

IOW, I think Einstein was comfortable w/ the thought that there could
well have been an intelligence behind the initial event, but I have
never seen anything in his writings that implies to me that for an iota
he thought there was anything but a physical process in play after
that...

I didn't say that he did.

it would, imo, totally negate the idea of there even being a
"unified theory" if that were not the case.

Are you saying that no ID believing scientist believes there may
be a unified theory?

Are you saying all ID is saying is there was an initial design of a
set of physical laws and all as proceded from that _fundamental_ set of
laws or are you claiming (AIUI) that there were certain forms of present
species in particular which were enabled preferentially over others by
some unknown and unknowable process?

If the former, that's nothing that some prominent scientists and other
philosophers have proposed for centuries. If the latter, then imo you
have negated the possibility of there even being such a thing as this
unknowable process prevents it.

As noted elsewhere, it's an interesting philosophical discussion but
needs to come to an end here so I cease (yet again )....

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ...

Citation?

Yes, I did.

..."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..."


As pointed out elsewhere, that's not the same thing.

I don't know who pointed it out but they were wrong.
I don't know how you can spin his words to mean anything but.

See my other response...in short I think it is you and your side who
"spin" the words out of their context to mean something other than what
was actually said or meant.

Please tell us what Einstein was struggling to say then.

I have in several other places...

"Bruce Barnett"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes:

We can predict many of the characterists of that fossil.


You can predict that similar fossils have similar characteristics?
Don't go too far out on the limb.


Sure. Look at the evolution of various families.
There are common traits within a family, and
at different periods, some traits become more established.


True, 'nuff. When do they become different families though?


As I said - the teeth, height, bone structure, feet, skull, mandible -
all have certain characteristics.

Tell a paeoltologist you found a "horse-like fossil" from 25 million
years ago, and he can tell you what characterists is should have.


But does he know horse**** when he sees it?



For instance, if we have a 3-toed horse and a one-toed horse,
we expect to find a horse with the outer toes smaller as paprt
of the transition. And that is what happened.


But was it formally a bird or mudskimmer?


Are you looking for a half-horse half-cow creature?


Only if it's on sale at Safeway.



There would be no separation of fossils by layer. But fossils
ARE separated by layer, in a predictable manner.


Different species at different times doesn't prove evolution.


We have evidence of evolution without fossil evidence, as it has
occured during our lifetime. So we have proof ignoring fossils.


Of micro-evolotion, but that's not in dispute.


The fossils just give us 1 billion more examples of proving it.


OK.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Renata wrote:

While the origin of the universe may matter to science, ID as the
explanation fails to follow the scientific method and thus, fails to
be in the realm science. (simply put)

Go back and read the rest of the thread. ID fails only to follow
the scope of science *as currently defined*. ID is trying to
get traction (in part) by arguing that the first propositions
of science are in incorrect (i.e. philosophical materialism).
....

But, that's a straw man they bring into the discussion because they
can't win otherwise...

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical
| foundation is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to
| throw up its hands now.

I'd like to suggest an alternative course: that you address the
process of discovery that can lead to more complete sightedness.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water" doesn't appear to be a
productive strategy.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Sigh. I've said it before, and I will say it again. Science was invented
by scientists, and involves a method. You can pop a theory out if nothing
(miraculous genesis) if you want. You can call it ID. For it to become
science involves work, a lot of work if you want to overthrow hundreds of
years of effort and knowledge. You have to identify scientific problems
that can't be solved or explained by extant theory, and show that your new
theory does provide a better explanation, and that the extant theory
(broadly, Science for Tim, or more aptly evolution by natural selection)
can't be improved to provide an equal or better explanation. It isn't
necessary for one prophet (oops, I mean ID scientist) to do the whole job,
but if you want to play the game of science, you have to play by the rules.
If you substitute some other set of rules, IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

The real issue isn't about ID "science." Anyone can propose hypotheses and
experiments to test them. They can submit their results for publication; if
it is a good hypothesis and test, with results that show the proposed
result, they will get published (Not always in your first choice journal.
BTDT). So there is a path for ID "science" to follow.

The real issue is that IDers want to shortcut the process and have ID taught
in school science curricula, as equally valid as evolution. That is what I
oppose and will fight against.

Steve #564

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

George (in ) said:

| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
| than someone of faith should question science.

I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a scientist
should question *everything* and that *everyone* should question
science.


That depends on what you mean by "question science". If you mean
continually test the present hypotheses and prediction of current
science, certainly--and good science does precisely that. If you mean
question science in the sense of the IDers and Creationists that

IDers and Creationists are rather different camps of thought, though
the adherents of each share some common views. Lumping them together
casually smacks of guilt-by-associaton. For instance, Creationism
almost always means people who insist in a literal 6x24hr creation
cycle. IDers as a group do not - in fact, one IDer I read called
that reading of Genesis a "wooden literal interpretation".


"Science" is fundamentally flawed in asserting the existence of natural

Strawman. Neither IDers nor Creationist assert that "Science is
fundamentally
flawed ....". IDers, especially, assert that *some of the assumptions*
that Science are based on are *inadequate*. No one questions the utility
value of Science. (At least no one relevant to this discussion.)

processes from the very beginning, then no.



No mature thinker is ever unwilling to question their first propositons
(i.e. The unprovable axioms upon which their system of thought is built.)
The stubborn refusal of the Science Establishment to even be willing
to consider the sufficiency of it's long-held premises is silly.
No one is suggesting we throw out Science, the Scientific Method, or
burn Scientists at the stake. What *is* suggested is that there may
be a more valid model in which to contextualize/harmonize the findings
of empirical Science.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:


As an exercise for the class, consider the case for ID research and report
back where it falls short.

Steve

With the proviso that I am still trying to understand the breadth of
ID's claims...

You said:

Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a
hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much
more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or
much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In
science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can
never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing
until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or
modified to fit the additional data.

OK. If I understand the IDers here is where they claim to want to interact
with current scientific theory:

1) Philosophically: a) Current science proceeds from the materialist-
mechanical view of nature. i.e., That no First and/or Sustaining Intelligent
Cause is necessary to the understanding of Nature as we observe it.
b) IDers *claim* that this presumption is incorrect (and they can't prove it,
but then again, you can't prove the materialist supposition either) and this
leads to incorrect conclusions about what we observe.

2) Empirically: They *claim* to justify 1b) on the grounds of what science
has already observed. To whit, that we see things in nature that are
"irreducably complex" - i.e. That could not have evolved because their
predecessor forms could not have survived long enough to evolve.
Irreducable complexity is a hypothesis because it can be falsified
(at least when directed at a particular organism or biosystem) by demonstrating
a less complex form that lead to the thing claimed to be "irreducable".

BUT - and this may be my lack of understanding - what I am not yet clear
on is just *how* they propose to do experiments to verify this.

Still reading ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
These foundational
axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or disproven. In the case of
science, several axioms are obvious:

1) Reason combined with Sensory Input is a reliable way to learn new
things (when guided by the Scientific Method to minimize/elmininate
individual bias).

2) The Universe can be understood in purely material-mechanical terms.
That is, there is no need to understand or acknowledge an intelligent
First and/or Sustaining Cause in order to get meaningful information
about the Universe.

3) 2) above is *sufficient* to know everything (in principle) that we can
know about the Universe.

And so on ... Note that Science *proceeds from* (begins with) these
assumptions. Note also that these are neither provable nor falsifiable,
they are just assumed starting points.

I note that you have rearranged and renumbered the basic axioms of science.
Fine, can we then stick to this, or will new First Propositions appear when
handy?



This is not a remarkable thing. As I said, all systems of epistemology
have this property. You start with one or more unprovable propositions
and see where they take you. *However*, thoughtful people stop now and
then and ask, "Given where my system of thought has taken me thus far,
are some changes in my starting propositions justified?"

*This* is where the heart of the debate between the IDers and today's
Establishment Science lies. The IDers argue that, as we look at where
*Science* has taken us over the past several hundred years, proposition
2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

AAAARGH. Scientists are about as anarchic as you can get. There are no
High Priests of Science. There is no Pope of Science; there are no Bishops
of Science (although there are bishops in chess). There are a few Nobel
Prize winners, none of which accept the claims of ID.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I think your other responses however, indicate you have a pretty poor
understanding of "how science works" that leads to what is, imo, an
incorrect conclusion about that status of ID as an alternative in the
science curriculum.

As social phenomenon and philosophy it has some place, but not in
science other than an "obtw, there are those who think this is a crock
but they're misguided".

I respectfully suggest amending to "obtw, there are those who think this
crock but they're misguided."

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:43:17 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| These foundational axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or
| disproven. In the case of science, several axioms are obvious:

ITYM "Lemma" rather than "axiom".

Howdy,

You have them reversed. The post to which you responded had
the correct usage of "axiom."

These from dictionary.com:

Axiom:

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It
is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and
services can be paid for only with goods and services”
(Albert Jay Nock).

An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true
without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.



Lemma:

A subsidiary proposition assumed to be valid and used to
demonstrate a principal proposition.

A theme, argument, or subject indicated in a title.

A word or phrase treated in a glossary or similar listing.



All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:45:10 -0400, Kenneth
wrote:

Howdy,

You have them reversed. The post to which you responded had
the correct usage of "axiom."

Hmmm, I may have clicked too quickly. I also found:


lemma

n 1: a subsidiary proposition that is assumed to be true in
order to prove another proposition

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical
| foundation is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to
| throw up its hands now.

I'd like to suggest an alternative course: that you address the
process of discovery that can lead to more complete sightedness.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water" doesn't appear to be a
productive strategy.

I don't have an alternative strategy. The IDers think they do - they
might be right or wrong. But wouldn't you agree that suggesting
defects in an existing theory does not require the concomittant
proposal for an alternative for the suggestion to be valid?
That is, I can (legitimately) say "X is possibly incorrect"
without necessarily having a replacement for X.


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
These foundational

axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or disproven. In the case of
science, several axioms are obvious:

1) Reason combined with Sensory Input is a reliable way to learn new
things (when guided by the Scientific Method to minimize/elmininate
individual bias).

2) The Universe can be understood in purely material-mechanical terms.
That is, there is no need to understand or acknowledge an intelligent
First and/or Sustaining Cause in order to get meaningful information
about the Universe.

3) 2) above is *sufficient* to know everything (in principle) that we can
know about the Universe.

And so on ... Note that Science *proceeds from* (begins with) these
assumptions. Note also that these are neither provable nor falsifiable,
they are just assumed starting points.


I note that you have rearranged and renumbered the basic axioms of science.
Fine, can we then stick to this, or will new First Propositions appear when
handy?

Hang on - I cited these as *examples* (without the intention of priortizing
them - sorry if the numbering misled you) in response to the contention that
Science has *no* (my emphasis) First Propositions. I was responding
only to that narrow point, not reinventing the philosophy of Science.




This is not a remarkable thing. As I said, all systems of epistemology
have this property. You start with one or more unprovable propositions
and see where they take you. *However*, thoughtful people stop now and
then and ask, "Given where my system of thought has taken me thus far,
are some changes in my starting propositions justified?"

*This* is where the heart of the debate between the IDers and today's
Establishment Science lies. The IDers argue that, as we look at where
*Science* has taken us over the past several hundred years, proposition
2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


AAAARGH. Scientists are about as anarchic as you can get. There are no
High Priests of Science. There is no Pope of Science; there are no Bishops

Again, look at some of the rhetoric in this thread - Science is objective
Scientists are not and they are sometimes prone to ad homina and
turf defense. It is in that sense I used the term "High Priests". I
did not mean to imply that Science has a pecking order that mirrors
the Papists - again, My Bad due to imprecision in language.

of Science (although there are bishops in chess). There are a few Nobel
Prize winners, none of which accept the claims of ID.

Steve




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Steve Peterson wrote:


As an exercise for the class, consider the case for ID research and
report
back where it falls short.

Steve

With the proviso that I am still trying to understand the breadth of
ID's claims...

You said:

Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a
hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is
much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains
all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be
tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible,
because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead,
theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they
are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

OK. If I understand the IDers here is where they claim to want to
interact
with current scientific theory:

1) Philosophically: a) Current science proceeds from the materialist-
mechanical view of nature. i.e., That no First and/or Sustaining
Intelligent
Cause is necessary to the understanding of Nature as we observe it.
b) IDers *claim* that this presumption is incorrect (and they can't
prove it,
but then again, you can't prove the materialist supposition either) and
this
leads to incorrect conclusions about what we observe.

2) Empirically: They *claim* to justify 1b) on the grounds of what
science
has already observed. To whit, that we see things in nature that are
"irreducably complex" - i.e. That could not have evolved because their
predecessor forms could not have survived long enough to evolve.
Irreducable complexity is a hypothesis because it can be falsified
(at least when directed at a particular organism or biosystem) by
demonstrating
a less complex form that lead to the thing claimed to be "irreducable".

BUT - and this may be my lack of understanding - what I am not yet
clear
on is just *how* they propose to do experiments to verify this.

Still reading ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Nonetheless, without any verification, they think that ID should be taught
in school as an equal to evolution by natural selection. If they can, in
fact, verify something with these as yet unknown experiments, then it will
be time to add ID to the science curriculum. In the meantime, "teach the
controversy" is a red herring. Teach science in science classes - teach
evolution.

Steve

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical
| foundation is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to
| throw up its hands now.

I'd like to suggest an alternative course: that you address the
process of discovery that can lead to more complete sightedness.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water" doesn't appear to be a
productive strategy.

I don't have an alternative strategy. The IDers think they do - they
might be right or wrong. But wouldn't you agree that suggesting
defects in an existing theory does not require the concomittant
proposal for an alternative for the suggestion to be valid?
That is, I can (legitimately) say "X is possibly incorrect"
without necessarily having a replacement for X.


Yeah, but it seems that it might be wiser to have some evidence other
than faith to offer the rest of the world. Shouting, "we're here,
that's why," doesn't exactly present a solid scientific foundation, and
so far, that's all the ID people are doing. It might be that 30 million
Southern Baptists can't be wrong, but it might also be that they are.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker

Are you saying that no ID believing scientist believes there may
be a unified theory?

Are you saying all ID is saying is there was an initial design of a
set of physical laws and all as proceded from that _fundamental_ set of
laws or are you claiming (AIUI) that there were certain forms of present
species in particular which were enabled preferentially over others by
some unknown and unknowable process?


It isn't a religion or set of dogma. All ID is saying is that the designs
had or have a designer.


If the former, that's nothing that some prominent scientists and other
philosophers have proposed for centuries. If the latter, then imo you
have negated the possibility of there even being such a thing as this
unknowable process prevents it.

As noted elsewhere, it's an interesting philosophical discussion but
needs to come to an end here so I cease (yet again )....


I think you made it too complicated.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ...

Citation?

Yes, I did.

..."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..."


As pointed out elsewhere, that's not the same thing.

I don't know who pointed it out but they were wrong.
I don't know how you can spin his words to mean anything but.

See my other response...in short I think it is you and your side who
"spin" the words out of their context to mean something other than what
was actually said or meant.

Please tell us what Einstein was struggling to say then.

I have in several other places...


I'll let his words speak for themselves.

There is a good article in the "Economist" on the ID trial in Dover, PA. If
you are trying to understand, read
http://www.economist.com/World/na/di...ory_id=4488706

Steve

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker

Are you saying that no ID believing scientist believes there may
be a unified theory?

Are you saying all ID is saying is there was an initial design of a
set of physical laws and all as proceded from that _fundamental_ set of
laws or are you claiming (AIUI) that there were certain forms of present
species in particular which were enabled preferentially over others by
some unknown and unknowable process?


It isn't a religion or set of dogma. All ID is saying is that the designs
had or have a designer.


If the former, that's nothing that some prominent scientists and other
philosophers have proposed for centuries. If the latter, then imo you
have negated the possibility of there even being such a thing as this
unknowable process prevents it.

As noted elsewhere, it's an interesting philosophical discussion but
needs to come to an end here so I cease (yet again )....


I think you made it too complicated.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ...

Citation?

Yes, I did.

..."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..."


As pointed out elsewhere, that's not the same thing.

I don't know who pointed it out but they were wrong.
I don't know how you can spin his words to mean anything but.

See my other response...in short I think it is you and your side who
"spin" the words out of their context to mean something other than what
was actually said or meant.

Please tell us what Einstein was struggling to say then.

I have in several other places...

I'll let his words speak for themselves.

But you didn't--you tried to use them out of context to bolster a claim
not made...

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.

Where I have a problem is in the requirement beyond the initial design
for continual or periodic intervention--that, imo, removes the
discussion from the realm of science.

It isn't a requirement.

I have addressed this at some length elsewhere in this thread. If, you
are simply postulating that there was an initial Being "Before Anything"
that set up a set of physical laws and started the wheels in motion and
is now watching, that's one thing. That model is not my understanding
of the whole of ID, however.

Individuals may go beyond it because of the implications but ID
is basically saying that there are features of life and the universe
that are best explained by an intelligent agent rather than chance.

But how did that intelligent agent implement the design is the
problem...

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.

Where I have a problem is in the requirement beyond the initial design
for continual or periodic intervention--that, imo, removes the
discussion from the realm of science.


It isn't a requirement.


I have addressed this at some length elsewhere in this thread. If, you
are simply postulating that there was an initial Being "Before Anything"
that set up a set of physical laws and started the wheels in motion and
is now watching, that's one thing. That model is not my understanding
of the whole of ID, however.


Individuals may go beyond it because of the implications but ID
is basically saying that there are features of life and the universe
that are best explained by an intelligent agent rather than chance.

"Larry Blanchard"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
they do so out of faith, not science.

Once again, the only rational answer to where the universe came from is "I
don't know".


Only agnosticism is rational? Even if one sees more evidence one way or
another?


But once it did exist, evolution seems to account quite well for the
diversity of species present and extinct. Our increasing knowledge of DNA
only reinforces it.


That's an overstatment if there ever was one. Many things are not explained
by evolution by chance. You are pretending there's no controversy on things
like The Cambiran Explosion within the evolutionist's camp.If you picked a
theory that you favor the most I fail to see any consistency with your agnosticim.

So you can only be rational if you don't know about a designer but
insist on a particular evolutionary model? Hmm.

So evolution should be taught in schools - where the universe came from
should not.


Evolution by itself leaves more questions than it answers. Perhaps intellectual
curiousity will finally be purged out of public ed but I hope not.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Larry Blanchard"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
they do so out of faith, not science.

Once again, the only rational answer to where the universe came from is
"I
don't know".


Only agnosticism is rational? Even if one sees more evidence one way or
another?

One can accept religion and still not know where the universe came from.
The only way to surely "know" is to accept on faith the Genesis account, or
something similar, i.e. nonscientific. The Bible is not a science book.

But once it did exist, evolution seems to account quite well for the
diversity of species present and extinct. Our increasing knowledge of
DNA
only reinforces it.


That's an overstatment if there ever was one. Many things are not
explained
by evolution by chance. You are pretending there's no controversy on
things
like The Cambiran Explosion within the evolutionist's camp.If you picked a
theory that you favor the most I fail to see any consistency with your
agnosticim.

the existence of heated debate about something that happened 600 million
years ago, and left only a very sparse fossil record, does not equate with
controversy about evolution, although the anti-science camp will grasp at
any straw to make it seem so.

So you can only be rational if you don't know about a designer but
insist on a particular evolutionary model? Hmm.

So evolution should be taught in schools - where the universe came from
should not.


Evolution by itself leaves more questions than it answers. Perhaps
intellectual
curiousity will finally be purged out of public ed but I hope not.

I will be most interested to see your lists of answered and open questions,
to see which is greater.

Steve

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:35:49 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


"Renata"
Speaking of the educational system (and without reading the ENTIRE
thread)...


There's nothing like a fool stepping forward to introduce himself.


Gee, we gotta start immediately with insults, thereby hinting at the
weakness of your arguement.




My theory is that ole Fred went to schools that had a pretty good
foundation in science, whereas ole Fletis probably didn't.


My theory is that you didn't go to school, period.

Your arguement continues to strengthen.

Honey, I'm not really trying to judge you, especially since I don't
know either of you at'all.. I read quite a few of the back& forth
between you and Fred which is why I singled y'all out. Fred presents
logic, fact, science kinda stuff. You continually retort with
religion and your replies often indicated a disconect between what
Fred said and how you interpreted it.

The 2 of you pressent a case, IMHO, for a set of (more?) ridgid
standards about the basics that should be taught in all schools across
the entire country. Get those basics down and the school can add
whatever the heck else it wants - whether it's religion or philosophy,
or home-ec, etc..



You want your kids to learn about God in school, send them to a
private religious institution. Really.


If we let parents decide where to spend their money that would
certainly happen more frequently but you missed the point, apparently
since you didn't feel it was necessary to read what you were responding to.

Yes, I'm sure lotsa parent would love to send their kids to be
indoctrinated in their fundamentalism and forget about math, reading
and especially that wicked science they teach in them thar evil public
schools.

No one's stopping you from sending your kids to your very own private
school.

Your tax dollars go toward educating the youg 'uns in the populace,
not just your kids.



Part of my basis for these statements is my background - went to
Catholic school for 12 years (horrors! ;-) We learned science kinda
stuff in the vaious science classes (you know, chemistry, physics,
biology, etc.). Then, the idea of an intelligent designer as a
possible explanation for the wonders and origins of the universe was
given in RELIGION class. 'Cause, you can't TEST the idea of ID using
the scientific method (a kinda fundamental requirement of SCIENCE).


Well, I'm glad they mentioned the possibility of an intelligent designer
somewhere in your Catholic school and maybe they did refuse to
answer any question regarding origins in science class but that isn't
universally true in public education.

See my comment above about basic standards.

Have yourself a lovely weekend, one and all!
Renata





On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:18:24 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


No, that isn't the issue. My argument has been on the biased
educational system, not whether we should be allowed to have
personal beliefs or demanding that God is declared real by the
scientific community.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
Duane Bozarth

What is taught is the best _scientific_ understanding of how things
happened.


That's not true. Many errors are found in school textbooks,
especially in the science field. Students often learn what the teacher
learned.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=17966
A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001
found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85
percent of the students in the country.



There doesn't need to be a conflict between an intelligent designer
and science. I think secularists are overreacting.


And, of course, they think the ID'ers and creationists are overreacting
in the other direction.


By letting in the possibility of a designer? That's an overreaction?


The problem is the IDers are trying to force the removal of best
practice current science from the educational system in favor of
pseudo-science.


No, there's no removal of anything that I know of.


The thing I always think of is "what if when they all get to their final
reward they discover it all did come from "the Big Bang" and that is how
it was chosen to do Creation?" What a waste of effort on something that
didn't really matter while they could have been doing something useful
and perhaps even important!


Again, you seem to be stuck on the either/or dichotomy. I believe in God
and the big bang, like millions of others.


OTOH, if the other side turns out wrong, so
what? They'll have a pretty useful description of how it all worked
that will have produced some useful insights into biological processes
that will have indirectly, at the very least, influenced medicine, etc.


If someone believes in ID they have no use for scientic endevours?


Maybe in the end, science will admit
defeat in understanding (I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose) and
the only rational explanation will turn out to be the supernatural. If
so, it bodes ill for our ability to progress much further in the
biological sciences as everything we think we understand will have been
shown to have been just a fluke of the point in time and point of
reference which can change at any time when this external power decides
to change the ground rules. As you see, that doesn't make any sense,
but it is the logical conclusion of demanding something other than
natural processes as what science deals with.

I don't see any logic in that statement. Scientists do change prevailing
views from time to time as more is learned. How that excludes an
external power or suggests that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power escapes me.


That's a problem then...if one is forced to resort to some supernatural
being as intervening to explain any physical process, then there is by
definition of the word "supernatural" a complete loss of
predictibility. Ergo, one now no longer has a science since the
cosmological principle has been violated.


The cosmos self starting violates the principle too, doesn't it?


How it suggests "that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power" lies in the presumption of the paragraph--being forced to admit defeat in understanding
implies that one reaches a point in which scientific exploration has reached a complete and utter impasse which would imply that
at a very fundamental level one has come to a point at which there would be results which are not consistent w/ nature and those
points are impossible to be resolved. In that case, one has a conundrum that leads to the inability to predict anything for sure
since the very basis has been shown to be to be "violatable" in some instance.

That there are areas in which we still lack complete understanding is a
totally different concept than the concept of throwing up one's hands
and saying "we don't know"
in the sense that it is unknowable and that
some all powerful force unrestricted to using "natural" forces caused an
event.


You remind me of the atheist I once debated that accused me of believing
in fairy tales while he believed in facts that weren't discovered yet.


The references the "why" as opposed to "how" questions are rightly left
to some explanation beyond the physical sciences and, in my reading of
Einstein, Hawking, et al., it is in that context alone that they invoke
the concept of a Deity.

In the end, it's a question of whether your side can ever manage to get
over the overreacting to what science says


Your assertion that IDers are overreacting to science is a lame
attempt at trying to make your belief look better. IDers have no
problem with science, just those who would misrepresent it.


and means and quit feeling
threatened in ones' position in the world on the basis of some
theoretical explanation that is our best effort to understand the "how"
of how the universe "ticks".

If you can ever generate a coherent and complete explanation that stands
up to peer review on details, then you may even contribute something to
the argument, but as already noted, as long as there is a reliance on
the supernatural for intervention after the initial event, then you've
left the scientific realm.


I've mentioned a number of times that the scientific realm is much
larger than that. Many theories and ideas are discussed that we
can't begin to prove.


It's been at least a rational discourse, but needs to come to an end in
r.w so I'll close w/ this.


As long as you don't close your mind...