"Steve Peterson"
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


There you go. Trials are well known for simplifying matters.

Just a short reply to some of your comments (I wanna get outta
here)...

On 07 Oct 2005 10:15:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Renata wrote:

What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?

Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren. These,
and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents* not a
meddlesome program of public theft and wealth redistribution. Government
as an instrument of education is analogous to having Michael Jackson run
a day-camp for 12 year old boys.

Education is the responsibility of parents only as far as making sure
the kids get a good one. Most parents aren't gonna be capable, have
time, etc. to sit down every ady and teach their kids.

Wealth redistribution we'll cover next time.



'Course, the way things are going, all they're gonna be needing is
proper diction of "you wan' fries wif that"?

That's, in part, because the highly-vaunted public education system has
turned into a political madrassas to indoctrinate its victims, er, I
mean students. Public education has become an enabler for irresponsible
parents, incompetent teachers, and indulged children. There is an old,
and very true, saying: If you want less of something, tax it. If you
want more if something, subsidize it. By that measure, we are subsidizing
irresponsibility, incompetence, and laziness and the results are all
around us.


The fact that the education system is broken (in many ways) doesn't
mean AN education system isn't needed. Just like the answer to poor
schools should be to fix the schools rather than give vouchers, the
answer to problems in the education system aren't to disolve it
entirely.

A well educated (and informed) populace is needed for a properly
functioning democracy among many other reasons. You wanna have the
rugrats running around illiterate, time on their hands, etc.?

R


Renata

On 06 Oct 2005 04:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
-snip-

we can fix the school
board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded education.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message ...
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...


No, you failed to explain what he could have otherwise meant
Let's try again without the posturing...
"...which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..."

Thanx!

Kinda getting settled in the new house and while there's lotsa
projects (hey, let me throw in a WW reference here) - inlcuding a new
kitchen which will entail making cabinets (cherry), I don't feel like
I'm drowning any more. The water's still deep but not overwhelming.

So, maybe I'll hang around here a bit more for a while.

Renata

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:22:20 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:

Welcome back, Renata. Missed you.

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

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

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

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).

Renata

[Great. My first (& 2nd) post coming back to the ole rec is about
religion. I'm sure the next will be politics ;-]



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 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...


We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

....

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

We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.

That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further as you simply
say the external agent did it. There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.

My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely. As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out, then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.

"Renata"


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.


The first time I saw you you said:

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

....thereby hinting at your lack of honesty.



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,


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.


Your interpretation is a bit short on facts. I said nothing about
religion.



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.


Not me. I called for loosening the standards to include both views.


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


....meanwhile you sound so open and tolerant.



and forget about math, reading
and especially that wicked science they teach in them thar evil public
schools.


Says who?



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.


Most can't afford to send yours and theirs to school.


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


Has happy hour started where you are?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

Opinion is like flatulence. Everyone else's seems to
stink worse than your own.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


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.


Dammit Tim, those are NOT the only two positions. I hold that "I don't
know" is the appropriate position as to the origin of the Universe. Nor
do I think we'll ever know.

However, once it was in existence, I think the evidence for evolution is
quite convincing.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

...

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

We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.


There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.


Science is clueless about origins and guesswork does abound. Why are
wild theories more impressive to you than a creator?


That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further


You've said that a number of times now and I've responded that
your assertion isn't true, I've quoted leading scientists, linking to more,
that did and do study more than you will ever know. At this point you are
deliberately misrepresenting any opposing belief.


as you simply
say the external agent did it. There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.


No one has argued about there not being a mechanism.


My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely.


Science isn't a set of dogma, it consists of fields of study. "Science"
doesn't include or exclude the supernatural.


As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out,


When would that be? Just before the last human dies?


then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.


Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| 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).

This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have spaghetti
and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."

If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I could
write. :-)

If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
rules as currently defined.

If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble "science"
(or not) but that new game isn't "science".

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

On 07 Oct 2005 13:05:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

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.

Actually, Tim, science does this on everything..... That's why the
word Theory as opposed to the word fact......

On 07 Oct 2005 10:33:05 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Slavery did not fall until there was a significant *popular* opposition
to it (brought about, BTW, by *religion* in large part), so no, the
"vast majority" did not support it forever. Moreover, the
issue of what ought to be taught in schools is not a civil liberties
issue like slavery. i.e., It is not a "freedom thing." Public schools
are funded at the point of the taxman's gun. This means that if everyone
is forced to pay up, then basic fairness demands that everyone gets a
voice in what is taught, however boneheaded their ideas might be.


So, Tim, are you going to scream bloody murder when the public schools
are forced to teach Islam, Buddism, Satanism along with astrology and
magic spells?

Let's teach facts as we know and can attempt to prove tehm, ID is
unprovable, period. There is no test for a God or Intelligent
Designer. ID'ers keep throwing up the strawman about axioms, but
answer me this.. Who created God. ID'ers keep saying that you can't
get something from nothing, so some ID'er needs to answer that
question with a verifiable test before they get to start teaching
superstitution in public schools........

Steve Peterson wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker"

"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.


We never "know" anything that we can't see or touch. We take most
things on faith. If we see news stories, photos, etc. we believe that
that they really did put a man on the moon, although not all are convinced.
Evidence is in the mind of the beholder.



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.


Sounds like a grasp to me. First of all, the evolutionary model doesn't explain
the mechanism behind the Cambrian Explosion, which is why there's a
debate. Secondly, if there were only sparse remnants, it wouldn't have
been called an explosion. Thirdly, your assertion that believing in an
intelligent design makes you anti-science is getting rather old. It was weak,
repeating it doesn't make it any stronger.

There are many scientists, some quite notable, that do believe in ID,
to demean them as being anti-science is bordering on bigotry.


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.


# ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the
early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing
like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

# DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian
explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil
record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus
contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

# HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry --
a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

# VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities
in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

# ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably
not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions
of years after it?

# PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists
have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?

# DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos
finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection
-- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution
occurred?

# MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings
as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though
the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside
the laboratory?

# HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify
materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident --
when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what
they looked like?

# EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific
fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.


Opinion is like flatulence. Everyone else's seems to
stink worse than your own.


Thanks for the more colorful metaphor.

On 10/6/2005 8:37 AM Doug Miller mumbled something about the following:
In article , justme wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article .com,

wrote:

Few scientists will fall for the egg/equinox legend but _The
State Legislature set pi = 3_ is rather popular among them.

You know, don't you, that *that* one is actually true (or nearly so).

Well, maybe for large values of 3 :-)


No, I mean about the legislature nearly voting to declare pi = 3.

3.2 actually.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

"Fletis Humplebacker" wrote in message
...
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.


# ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the
early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing
like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a
mystery?

# DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian
explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil
record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus
contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

# HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry --
a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

# VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities
in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not
most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

# ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are
probably
not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until
millions
of years after it?

# PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when
biologists
have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree
trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?

# DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos
finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by
natural selection
-- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no
net evolution
occurred?

# MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair
of wings
as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution --
even though
the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive
outside
the laboratory?

# HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to
justify
materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere
accident --
when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were
or what
they looked like?

# EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a
scientific
fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of
the facts?

This appears to be one list with 10 questions. Can't make any comparisons
yet. IMHO evolution has provided explanations for a few more than 10
questions.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

...

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

We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.

Science is clueless about origins and guesswork does abound. Why are
wild theories more impressive to you than a creator?

It's not about being "impressed" or not, it's about finding a rational,
natural causation that works in all times and places to explain what we
see. That there might have been a creator who set something in motion
is one philosphical choice one can make, but it is truly immaterial
after that point. It doesn't make a whit of difference in the evolution
of the universe since. If that isn't the assertion, then you have the
supernatural intervention again and the conclusion that there is no way
to ever understand the actual universe.

That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further

You've said that a number of times now and I've responded that
your assertion isn't true, I've quoted leading scientists, linking to more,
that did and do study more than you will ever know. At this point you are
deliberately misrepresenting any opposing belief.

No, I'm simply illustrating a fallacy in the argument. I'll say it yet
again--if there _was/is_ supernatural intervention, then by the
definition of supernatural there is no way to have a natural, scientific
methodology that satisfies the cosmological principle.

as you simply
say the external agent did it. There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.

No one has argued about there not being a mechanism.

Then what role does the ID'er play? If he/she/it is munging about doing
all sorts of things, then the basis for the mechanism must be, to
paraphrase Flip Wilson, "the whoever made me do it". If not, and there
is a well-defined mechanism that is knowable (whether it is known yet or
not), then there is no need for the ID'er other than this philosophical
choice of prime progenitor.

My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely.

Science isn't a set of dogma, it consists of fields of study. "Science"
doesn't include or exclude the supernatural.

Science does exclude the supernatural, _by definition_ because if it
is supernatural there is no scienfific basis for the explanation of any
phenomenon that relies on the supernatural--a tautology.

As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out,

When would that be? Just before the last human dies?

Whenever...it's a description of the position with respect to how
science will/can advance--either it can continue to do so or it can't:
so far, it has been able to continue but there's no guarantee (although
I certainly don't think that will happen). However, from the viewpoint
of requiring a supernatural intervening force to provide the
explanation, it is inevitable that at some point that becomes the only
explanation.

then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.

Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...

See above...it's the end game.

I'm done...finis. If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.

On 10/5/2005 11:57 PM LARRY BLANCHARD mumbled something about the following:
In article ,
says...

That is, there is a lower
bound of biological complexity (in some cases) that you could not get to
evolutionarily because the path to that point would not exhibit
sufficient complexity for the precedant organisms to survive and
evolve.




Well, I remember when the debate was whether or not virii were alive.
Now it's whether prions are. Can't get much simpler than that :-).

And I'm still waiting for a logical explanation of where the "designer"
came from. Who created him/her/it/they?

The god of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. was created by the other
gods that came before him. After all, the 1st commandment says "Thou
shalt have no other gods before me." which, in itself, admits that there
are other gods besides him/her/it.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 10/6/2005 11:58 PM Fletis Humplebacker mumbled something about the
following:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

"The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence
of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic
thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We
are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are
covered
to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows
that someone must have written these books. It does not know who
or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are
written.
But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the
books.....a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects."


...


But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein
thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I
suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it)
that
he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the basic
underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and
that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle.

That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic
intervention.



I don't agree. Alot of people seem to confuse it with a
Judeo-Christian God.
It doesn't exclude one but interpretations of how God interacts, if
he does
at all, is a different matter. Einstein didn't uphold any traditional
religious
view as far as I've seen but he does refer to it as "...reveals an
intelligence
of such superiority that..."



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.


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.

He also said "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot
penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most
radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible
to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute
true religiosity; in this sense, and this [sense] alone, I am a deeply
religious man."

He also said "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the
orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
the fates and actions of human beings."

As well as "What we [physicists] strive for is just to draw His lines
after Him." Summarizing his religious beliefs, he once said: "My
religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive
with our frail and feeble mind."

Victor J. Stenger wrote of Einstein's presumed pantheism, "Both deism
and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted
with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza that the deity
is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself. This also
crudely summarizes the Hindu view and that of many indigenous religions
around the world. When modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen
Hawking mention 'God' in their writings, this is what they seem to mean:
that God is Nature."

In no way does any of his sayings suggest that Einstein beleived that ID
should be taught.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 10/6/2005 2:55 PM George mumbled something about the following:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
The newspaper was pleased to be fed information about

exceptional teachers and students, for example; and most local
business people were willing to help in whatever way they could if
asked (and asked in the right way). I don't know about Michigan; but
educating young people just wasn't a hard sell in Minnesota.



We don't publish honor rolls any more.

They do here in Georgia.

We appoint valedictorians, they don't earn it.

We've always appointed them, and they were appointed to those who earned
it, and still do.

Some places keep talking about abolishing any form of academic measurement.

Some, not all.

Education a hard sell? Not sure we'd recognize it if it happened.




--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 10/6/2005 3:25 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
John Emmons wrote:

In a similiar vein, I haven't seen any scientists or educators beating
down
the doors of churches claiming that biological evolution MUST be taught
along with the story of creationism in Sunday school.


Sunday School is not funded at the point of a government gun via
tax dollars. Big difference. The people attempting to change
their school systems are doing so because they are being forced to
fund something with which they do not agree and they are using their
democratic rights to make the changes they want. This is getting
traction because an overwhelming majority of people affirm some
kind of intelligent cause to the universe. This doesn't make them
right, of course, but this means that the *majority of taxpayers*
see it that way.

No, Sunday School is funded by NON taxation. No real difference.


It seems fair to expect those wishing to join the debate, ie, the
"Intelligent Design" proponents, to provide some evidence that can be
proven
before they get a seat at the table.


"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible. The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.

You should speak with the IDers around here then. It's not a
philisophical debate, it's a right/wrong debate. Evolution is wrong, ID
is right.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 10/7/2005 8:18 AM George mumbled something about the following:
"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?

Or only institutions which don't reflect your opinion?


I feel the same way about all non-taxed organizations.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn wrote:
On 10/6/2005 8:37 AM Doug Miller mumbled something about the following:
In article , justme wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article .com,

wrote:

Few scientists will fall for the egg/equinox legend but _The
State Legislature set pi = 3_ is rather popular among them.

You know, don't you, that *that* one is actually true (or nearly so).

Well, maybe for large values of 3 :-)


No, I mean about the legislature nearly voting to declare pi = 3.


For a value of 'nearly' = never got out of comittee.

3.2 actually.


For a system of arithmetic in which 221/7 = 3.2, actually.

--

FF

Steve Peterson wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" wrote in message
...

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.


# ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the
early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing
like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a
mystery?

# DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian
explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil
record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus
contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

# HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry --
a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

# VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities
in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not
most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

# ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are
probably
not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until
millions
of years after it?

# PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when
biologists
have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree
trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?

# DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos
finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by
natural selection
-- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no
net evolution
occurred?

# MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair
of wings
as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution --
even though
the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive
outside
the laboratory?

# HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to
justify
materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere
accident --
when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were
or what
they looked like?

# EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a
scientific
fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of
the facts?


This appears to be one list with 10 questions. Can't make any comparisons
yet. IMHO evolution has provided explanations for a few more than 10
questions.

Well, it's ten that you can't seem to respond to so the score is 10 to 0 for now.

Odinn wrote:
On 10/6/2005 11:58 PM Fletis Humplebacker mumbled something about the
following:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

"The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence
of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic
thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We
are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are
covered
to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child
knows
that someone must have written these books. It does not know who
or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are
written.
But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the
books.....a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects."



...



But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein
thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I
suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it)
that
he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the
basic
underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and
that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle.

That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic
intervention.




I don't agree. Alot of people seem to confuse it with a
Judeo-Christian God.
It doesn't exclude one but interpretations of how God interacts, if
he does
at all, is a different matter. Einstein didn't uphold any
traditional religious
view as far as I've seen but he does refer to it as "...reveals an
intelligence
of such superiority that..."




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.


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.


He also said "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot
penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most
radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible
to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute
true religiosity; in this sense, and this [sense] alone, I am a deeply
religious man."

He also said "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the
orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
the fates and actions of human beings."


True, he did not believe in a personal god.



As well as "What we [physicists] strive for is just to draw His lines
after Him." Summarizing his religious beliefs, he once said: "My
religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive
with our frail and feeble mind."


Illimitable superior spirit sounds like a god to me.



Victor J. Stenger wrote of Einstein's presumed pantheism, "Both deism
and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted
with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza that the deity
is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself. This also
crudely summarizes the Hindu view and that of many indigenous religions
around the world. When modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen
Hawking mention 'God' in their writings, this is what they seem to mean:
that God is Nature."


What does deity mean to you?


In no way does any of his sayings suggest that Einstein beleived that ID
should be taught.

In no way did he suggest that it shouldn't.

Renata wrote:

Just a short reply to some of your comments (I wanna get outta
here)...

On 07 Oct 2005 10:15:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Renata wrote:


What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?

Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren. These,
and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents* not a
meddlesome program of public theft and wealth redistribution. Government
as an instrument of education is analogous to having Michael Jackson run
a day-camp for 12 year old boys.


Education is the responsibility of parents only as far as making sure
the kids get a good one. Most parents aren't gonna be capable, have

That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
education. It's theft plain and simple.

Oh ... never mind. Let's not go there. Besides,
I've already seen that movie. It's called "collectivism" and
was responsible for untold human misery over history ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:

"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

I understand your point.


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.

"Teach the controversy" is very much in the spirit of unresolved Science though.
There are pleny of open questions about the current inter-species evolution
model ... and there is still controvery there, but it is taught nonetheless.



Steve




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

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| 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).

This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have spaghetti
and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."

If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I could
write. :-)

If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
rules as currently defined.

If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble "science"
(or not) but that new game isn't "science".


If you take this position (which you are free to do), you are essentially
saying the the epistemology of science is settled for all time and can not/
ought not to ever be revisited. I sort of have a problem with that ...


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




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

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

...

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

We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.

Science is clueless about origins and guesswork does abound. Why are
wild theories more impressive to you than a creator?


It's not about being "impressed" or not, it's about finding a rational,
natural causation that works in all times and places to explain what we
see.


There's no rational or natural explanation for life and the universe
so I don't see anything irrational about design by intent.


That there might have been a creator who set something in motion
is one philosphical choice one can make, but it is truly immaterial
after that point.


It's material to the individual but not ID per se.



It doesn't make a whit of difference in the evolution
of the universe since. If that isn't the assertion, then you have the
supernatural intervention again and the conclusion that there is no way
to ever understand the actual universe.


You've made that charge a number of times and ignore my
repeated point that many scientists are IDers and take their fields
seriously. You have a mind block going on.


That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further

You've said that a number of times now and I've responded that
your assertion isn't true, I've quoted leading scientists, linking to more,
that did and do study more than you will ever know. At this point you are
deliberately misrepresenting any opposing belief.


No, I'm simply illustrating a fallacy in the argument. I'll say it yet
again--if there _was/is_ supernatural intervention, then by the
definition of supernatural there is no way to have a natural, scientific
methodology that satisfies the cosmological principle.


Only if you assume a unified theory of everything will be proven
and it disproves any intentional design. That an unscholarly
and close minded approach.


as you simply
say the external agent did it. There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.


No one has argued about there not being a mechanism.


Then what role does the ID'er play? If he/she/it is munging about doing
all sorts of things, then the basis for the mechanism must be, to
paraphrase Flip Wilson, "the whoever made me do it". If not, and there
is a well-defined mechanism that is knowable (whether it is known yet or
not), then there is no need for the ID'er other than this philosophical
choice of prime progenitor.


To paraphrase Donald Rumsfield "we don't know what we don't know".


My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely.

Science isn't a set of dogma, it consists of fields of study. "Science"
doesn't include or exclude the supernatural.


Science does exclude the supernatural, _by definition_ because if it
is supernatural there is no scienfific basis for the explanation of any
phenomenon that relies on the supernatural--a tautology.


If there's no scientific basis for something that has happened
then it would be unscientific to pretend it didn't.



As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out,

When would that be? Just before the last human dies?


Whenever...it's a description of the position with respect to how
science will/can advance--either it can continue to do so or it can't:
so far, it has been able to continue but there's no guarantee (although
I certainly don't think that will happen). However, from the viewpoint
of requiring a supernatural intervening force to provide the
explanation, it is inevitable that at some point that becomes the only
explanation.

That's where we are now. There's no scientific explanation
for intelligent designs that we are studying. If science can
prove that the universe and life started and evolved on it's own
it will still need to answer how matter got so smart to give us the
complete picture. If you want to wait for the dawn of civilization
that's fine with me.


then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.

Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...


See above...it's the end game.


Hey, where's my link? Did you knock it out of the ballpark?


I'm done...finis. If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.

Their role would be to better understand the universe and the
world we live in, just like regular folks.

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Renata wrote:
|
|| Just a short reply to some of your comments (I wanna get outta
|| here)...
||
|| On 07 Oct 2005 10:15:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
|| wrote:
||
||| Renata wrote:
|||
|||| What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?
|||
||| Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
||| religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren.
||| These, and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents*
||| not a meddlesome program of public theft and wealth
||| redistribution. Government as an instrument of education is
||| analogous to having Michael Jackson run a day-camp for 12 year
||| old boys.
||
|| Education is the responsibility of parents only as far as making
|| sure the kids get a good one. Most parents aren't gonna be
|| capable, have
|
| That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
| one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
| education. It's theft plain and simple.

Individual and group survival is enhanced in proportion to the extent
of knowledge and skills held by the individual and the group(s) of
which that individual is a part.

All societies and cultures of which I'm aware make demands on members'
resources. In this society one of those demands is for the resources
to imbue the largest possible number of young people with knowledge
and skills that (we hope) will ensure their (and our) survival.

It's theft only to those members of society who feel their personal
aims are more important than the survival of other members or of the
society itself.

For such individuals, there is an easy remedy: they can remove
themselves from that society and refuse (or be denied) any and all all
of the benefits derived from the contributions of the willing members.

I completely agree - you should not be obliged to make an unwilling
contribution. The problem is - where can you go?

| Oh ... never mind. Let's not go there. Besides,
| I've already seen that movie. It's called "collectivism" and
| was responsible for untold human misery over history ...

You might have come in late to that movie. There was an important
point that you missed: in collectivism, your contribution is 100% of
everything. In extreme cases, that "everything" can include your
personal survival.

But it does offer an interesting insight: Groups that fail to provide
for survival of the individual generally don't survive as groups.

Hmm...

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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
....
I'm done...finis. If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.

Their role would be to better understand the universe and the
world we live in, just like regular folks.

I'm not talking about "they", I'm asking about the whoever/whatever is
THE I in the ID argument. What is it's role in all this? I reiterate
that if there is no intervention, then there is no need. If there is
intervention, then there is no possibility for any science to make the
understanding whether it's performed by ID adherents or not.

So, I ask again--in your view, what is the role of the I in ID after the
(we'll assume for sake of argument) initial event? IOW, is it still
making changes or did it do all the design up front or some combination
of the above?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:

"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

I understand your point.


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.

"Teach the controversy" is very much in the spirit of unresolved Science though.
There are pleny of open questions about the current inter-species evolution
model ... and there is still controvery there, but it is taught nonetheless.


In my scince classes it was settled controversies that were taught,
so even if one were to (mitakenly) suppose that there were an ID
controversy in science, that would not be something to be taught.
The settled controversy between slow mutation and natural selection
and its priciple competing theory, transmutiaon, was taught when
I was in school.

Would you consider an 'ID theory' of mathematics?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
education.

Or another man's security, or another man's road, or another man's
hospitalization, or another man's airport, or another man's levee ...

It's theft plain and simple.


Taxation is, you would seem to be saying.

Why say it here? What does that have to do with GWB drinking?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:
||
||| 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).
||
|| This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have
|| spaghetti and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."
||
|| If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I
|| could write. :-)
||
|| If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
|| rules as currently defined.
||
|| If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
|| game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
|| changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble
|| "science" (or not) but that new game isn't "science".
|
| If you take this position (which you are free to do), you are
| essentially saying the the epistemology of science is settled for
| all time and can not/ ought not to ever be revisited. I sort of
| have a problem with that ...

And so do I. What I'm saying is that if you want to make it an issue
of "science" then you'll need to make that point in the terms that the
community can understand and you'll need to offer evidence that the
community can accept as indisputably true.

Failing that, you'll be likened to the mystic coming down from the
mountain top proclaiming that "the end is near" - because no matter
how true the pronouncement may be, it'll have no credibility.

Worse, the more assiduously you present the message without meeting
the community's credibility criteria, the less your chances for
success. If you continue overlong, you consign yourself to being
considered irrelevant "background noise".

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

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
education.


Or another man's security, or another man's road, or another man's
hospitalization, or another man's airport, or another man's levee ...


Exactly

It's theft plain and simple.



Taxation is, you would seem to be saying.

Why say it here? What does that have to do with GWB drinking?



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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
education.


Or another man's security, or another man's road, or another man's
hospitalization, or another man's airport, or another man's levee ...


Exactly

Do you have a alternative suggestion that is distinguishible
from anarchy?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| 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).

This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have spaghetti
and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."

If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I could
write. :-)

If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
rules as currently defined.

If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble "science"
(or not) but that new game isn't "science".


If you take this position (which you are free to do), you are essentially
saying the the epistemology of science is settled for all time and can not/
ought not to ever be revisited. I sort of have a problem with that ...


It is the epistemology that differentiates science from
anything else.

But supposing we put that issue aside for the moment and
consider fitting ID into that epistemology, removing whatever
other elements conflict with it. Let us at least recognize
that ID is not a new idea, it is very old idea, one that
predates science itself. Let us also recall that prior to
the abandonement of ID, no progress in science could be
attributed to a reliance on that particular element, but
instead, was often made in controvention of it.

So, a reluctance on the part of scientists to backslide by
reincorporating ID into the epistemology of science is
rather understandable, don't you think?

--

FF

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Renata wrote:
|
|| Just a short reply to some of your comments (I wanna get outta
|| here)...
||
|| On 07 Oct 2005 10:15:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
|| wrote:
||
||| Renata wrote:
|||
|||| What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?
|||
||| Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
||| religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren.
||| These, and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents*
||| not a meddlesome program of public theft and wealth
||| redistribution. Government as an instrument of education is
||| analogous to having Michael Jackson run a day-camp for 12 year
||| old boys.
||
|| Education is the responsibility of parents only as far as making
|| sure the kids get a good one. Most parents aren't gonna be
|| capable, have
|
| That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
| one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
| education. It's theft plain and simple.

Individual and group survival is enhanced in proportion to the extent
of knowledge and skills held by the individual and the group(s) of
which that individual is a part.


So is having a single strong-man dictator to make decisions that
keep society more efficient. If utility is your moral justification,
you can justify almost anything.


All societies and cultures of which I'm aware make demands on members'
resources. In this society one of those demands is for the resources

At the implied point of a gun ..

to imbue the largest possible number of young people with knowledge
and skills that (we hope) will ensure their (and our) survival.

Yes, we've heard many versions of this befo "From each according to
his ability, to each according to his need". But it doesn't work -
It just creates a new ruling class with lots of serfs to support them.
*Voluntary* coooperation, however, has been demonstrated to work
far better for the preservation of society as a whole and the
individiual in particular. I have existence proofs that the two
assertions above are true.


It's theft only to those members of society who feel their personal
aims are more important than the survival of other members or of the
society itself.

No. It is theft anytime force or the threat of force is required
to extract the wealth - for example the threat of being jailed for not
paying for someone else's children to go to school. You, if you feel
diffently, are always free to support Other People's Children with
voluntary donations of your own wealth.


For such individuals, there is an easy remedy: they can remove
themselves from that society and refuse (or be denied) any and all all
of the benefits derived from the contributions of the willing members.

I completely agree - you should not be obliged to make an unwilling
contribution. The problem is - where can you go?

The problem is that the US *used* be an alternative. It's use
of government force was constrained to that little necessary to
preserve individual liberty fairly for all. Now, though, it
has become increasingly collectivized to the point where most
people don't even question the morality of using the force of
government to educate, build levees, and otherwise rescue people
from their own poor choices.


| Oh ... never mind. Let's not go there. Besides,
| I've already seen that movie. It's called "collectivism" and
| was responsible for untold human misery over history ...

You might have come in late to that movie. There was an important
point that you missed: in collectivism, your contribution is 100% of

It *became* that at some point. But most all the forms of collectivism -
Socialism, Communism, Nazism - started out taking something less than
all and migrated towards the full taking over time (because the
economics of these system is degenerate and unsustainable without
force).


everything. In extreme cases, that "everything" can include your
personal survival.

But it does offer an interesting insight: Groups that fail to provide
for survival of the individual generally don't survive as groups.

That's perhaps the inevitable case in the long-run. But we a long
and studied history on this planet of collectivist systems that
enabled the few at a fairly horrid cost to the individual over
very long periods of time. These would include monarchies, dictatorships,
theocracies, and pure rule-by-force. While they all eventually have
their sunset they do a lot of damage in the mean time.

Hmm...

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




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

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
education.


Or another man's security, or another man's road, or another man's
hospitalization, or another man's airport, or another man's levee ...


Exactly


Do you have a alternative suggestion that is distinguishible
from anarchy?


Yes, in this case I do. Use the force of government exclusively as
an instrument for the preservation of individual liberty. This
boils down to the government interdicting only in matters of force,
fraud, and/or threat (since all harm to individual liberty can
be reduced to one of those cases). Everything else should be
outside the purview of government and its ability to use force.
This is approximately (but imperfectly) what is seen in the early
and foundational documents of the US.

BTW, this has to do with GW's Drinking (or not) as GW's Drinking
(or not) has to with woodworking. Shall we call a truce and
end this misbegotten thread? I see some of the other wreckers are
disgruntled having never apparently learned the filter and kill
functions ....

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