"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
ink.net...

If ID is only the initiator of the Big Bang, the hard line anti-ID
folks may not have a problem since everything we observe came after, and
the
designer is moved out of the realm of science. On the other hand, if the
designer keeps being involved, the creationists may be happy, especially
if
the world is only about 6000 years old.

Precision counts Steve. You should value that. Creationists believe in
creation and a creator. They do not universally believe in a young earth or
the other teachings of the Institute for Creation Research. ICR is a very
focused, separate group within the agregate of Creationists. Creationists
believe in ID by definition but they do not necessarily ascribe to the
teachings of ICR. To misuse the term as you do is akin to lumping all
scientists together and held accountable for the blunderous research of a
group of Biologists. Within the camp of Creationists some tend to
differentiate themselves from the ICR group by referring to the ICR group as
"Young Earth Creationists". For all that has been posted in these threads
about ID not being in conflict with an old universe, evolution (by
definition), scientific principles, etc. it's somewhat surprising to see you
continue to comitt this slip.


Everyone else can fit themselves in
wherever they want. ID just has to show where there are examples of
things
that can only have come about through supernatural intervention. We are
still waiting.

Oh come now. Science has proven to no better degree that life as we know it
today evolved from a single cell that just happened to pop up in a pond of
ooze. Why then place such a burden of proof on ID?


The more practical question is if ID should be taught in the school
curriculum. I think it still has to establish a scientific case before it
can be taught as science.


I don't think it should be taught as science. But then again, much more
than science is taught in school. And... whether the scientific community
really likes it or not, more than just a little bit of "religion" is taught
in the sciences classes of America.

--

-Mike-

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNEEP

... but if you do become victimized by a
.357 in the hands of a criminal robbing you, you just *might* want to
legitimate the power of government to interdict and/or remediate the
situation.

Of course. But why should I pay for it when it is someone else who
is being robbed.

More fundamentally, suppose I want to trust to my own luck, what
right does the government have to force protection on me?

--

FF

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

Devil in the definitions. Euthanasia of the infirm, insane and elderly
is
good for the long-term survival of the species, reduces competition for
scarce resources. How's that for a single example?


Limiting the number of children to a replacement value would accomplish
the same thing without the killing. But I can hear the screams of the
"go forth and multiply" crowd from here :-).

Why single out just that crowd? I can hear the screams from a lot of other
sectors as well.
--

-Mike-

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? ...



If you feel like taking a break from your reading about ID you
might consider reading a little about Cosmology. The Big
Bang Theory dos not hold that something came out of nothing.


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. So where
exactly did the building materials come from in this massive
construction project? If you have an answer for this question
than reapply it iteratively to the preceding point. This
leads you to the same possibilities I pointed out in my very
first post on the matter in this thread.
....

Well, there are a number of competing theories. The "Big Bang" is
clearly (and has been reconized since the beginning as being) incomplete
in that there are numerical singularities in early formulations. The
techniques to remove more and more of those are the prime areas of
current research. It's for precisely such reasons that newer
developments such as string theory have come into play--because the
existing theories were understood to have limitations. That's how
science works--one goes as far as one theory will take one, then builds
on it to see where to go from there. It's simply a continuation of the
process started by Newton in the Principia where modern cosmology can be
said to start.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...


OK, let's take one simple example. When wars were fought with clubs or
swords, the strong and/or smart survived better than the weak and/or
stupid. Thus warfare was, in at least one sense, good for the species.

Unless you were one of the weak and smart ones who would have discovered a
cure for the current killer disease. Just who decides which is better -
strong or weak? How many truly smart people are equally strong combatants?
At what loss to society for them to be killed by the strong simply because
they are weak? You are really setting yourself up to be god in your
scenario Larry in that you're taking it upon yourself - or perhaps a group,
to determine which traits are valuable. In what way is that different from
the current moral system?


Once we learned to kill at a distance, with nuclear weapons being at the
current end of that chain, who died became much more random (and
included a lot of non-combatants). So warfare is now, in all senses,
bad for the species.

That does not make sense Larry. If killing the weak and stupid was good
before, then it still has to be good now. Sure, you're also killing some
strong and smart, but at least you're getting rid of the weak and stupid, so
that must remain good, right?


And what happens to the poorest members of our society if vaccines are
made profitable by raising prices? Surely your beliefs must include
answering the "Am I my brother's keeper" question in the affirmative.


Hey - I thought we just got done killing off all of the poor members of our
society...

--

-Mike-

Steve Peterson wrote:

....
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...

Larry Blanchard wrote:
....
...So warfare is now, in all senses, bad for the species.

Not absolutely necessarily...there are still areas where overpopulation
could be alleviated by such means, resulting in better standard of
living for the surviving.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNEEP


Populist politics funds _some_ of the 'science establishment'
because it receives a return on that investment. That
return will be reduced if populist politics begins to
micromanage the 'science establishment'.


I see, so the message is, "Pay up and stay out
of our way." Can you see how this might just be
a *teeny* problem?

If you saw that in what I wrote, you put it there yourself.



The American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association
quite debating the tobacco companies because the tobacco
companies got more benefit from the existance of the debate
than they lost from the content of the debate itself.
That, and the tobacco companies also used the debates
as a platform from which to disseminate outright lies.

Interesting you should mention this. There is no question
that inhaling cigarette smoke for many years is correlated
to a statistically shorter lifespan. However, the
anti-smoking zealots (and that's what they are) fail
to mention a few inconvenient facts:

None of which are relevant to the reasons why the ACS and ALA
quite debating the tobacco companies.


... But this
doesn't stop the Professional Behavior Nannies from trying to
outlaw things other people find pleasurable and use a very
stilted version of "science" to justify itself.

You have fallen for the nicotine cartel propoganda. Smokers
find smoking 'pleasurable' the same way that migraine sufferers
find imitrex 'pleasurable'. Smoking temporarily relieves
suffering that is brought on by the addiction itself. Perhaps
the biggest lie about smoking is that people want to smoke.
Very few people do, most smoke exclusively to relieve the
symptoms of withdrawal sickness.

Now, it is a tough call as to which drugs to permit, which
to regulate, which to ban. I don't claim to have any particular
insight in the matter. But note that we (whether you approve
of it or not) have the FDA and BATF who concern themselves with,
amonng other things, the safety of those drugs. You can't
get away with selling alcoholic beverages with dangerous
levels of methanol, or ethylene glycol. But the nicotine
cartels continue to distribute their drug in a manner that
carries all sorts of unnecessary risks.



One expects the Christian Coalition to do the same.

You're kidding yourself. There's more of them than there
are of you. They pay a lot of taxes, and they donate
to a lot of political campaigns.

Last I heard between 2 and 3 million, they do not have
nearly as much money as the tobacco companies and today
most people do understand that nicotine is addictive,
something the tobacco companies denied so long as they
were allowed to debate the issue.


You jolly well better
have a better strategy than "they'll just go away" or you will
find your funding and independence severly compromised in the
not-so-distant future. That is yet another reason to meet them
on the discussion of ID to *engage* now and either make them
demonstrate the validity of their claims, or slink off to try
something else.

The 'Creation Sicentists' went away, (actually, many converted
to 'IDers').



SNIP

"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty ...

That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.


But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element
of each is "God did it".

Another strawman. An "intelligent designer" did it.

There is no functional diffference (e.g. testable hypothesis)
between 'intellignet designer' and God. Only if you restrict
the defintion of God to thatused by some specific religious
sect can you argue that intelligent design could proceed without
a God.

They
do not (for purposes of this discussion) imbue that designer
with the specific moral attributes of a Judeo-Christian
God. Quit fighting the fight you understand and look at
the fight you're being offered.


The Christian Coalition absolutely does imbue the designer with
the specific moral attributes of a Christian God. They are the
principle proponents of ID today.

--

FF

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNEEP

... but if you do become victimized by a
.357 in the hands of a criminal robbing you, you just *might* want to
legitimate the power of government to interdict and/or remediate the
situation.

Of course. But why should I pay for it when it is someone else who
is being robbed.

More fundamentally, suppose I want to trust to my own luck, what
right does the government have to force protection on me?


The right you inherited when you were lucky enough to be born...if it
weren't this particular version, it would have been another somewhere
else. IOW, "you can run, but you can't hide". You could, I suppose,
find an unoccupied island somewhere and go be its sole inhabitant, but
that's about the only way one can become totally independent anywhere on
the earth today.

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

You can legitimately say that. The 'Iders' do not. The
concomittant proposal for an alternative is paramount to
them. Before 'ID' it was 'creation science'. They are not
in this fight for the science.

Check out their webpages and look into what other issues
they support. Their agenda will be clear.

The Creation Science guys (ICR) do have their own agenda Fred. They are
however different from ID.

The Protestants have their own agenda. They are however diferent
from the Lutherans.

Actually, in each case, the latter is a subset of the former.

'ID' is a form of 'creationism' in which the 'creator' is
renamed 'the designer' and creates with more subtley than in
some other variants like 'creation science'.

Do you seriously doubt that many of the people pushing
for 'ID' in the public schools are not the same people
who were previously pushing for 'creation science' in
the public schools?



That does not make 'ID' wrong, but it puts the present
controversy in perspective. Without the Christian Coalition
and its ilk, you would never have heard of ID.


ID has been around for a lot longer than the Christian Coalition.

I suppose so, but that is beside the point.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

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


There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list
ostensibly supports.


If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as
the cause what do you suppose is left?


Everything else, of course.


Like what?


The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Dawinian theory should be encouraged."

No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any
mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory.
Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others
there may be.


Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions?


Evidently you don't either.

I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction
between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any
others.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did
that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we
observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of
science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...
I agree, and I am just trying to corral the arguments that are flying
around. It is a little difficult on a newsgroup to chime in at the right
time to support someone or disagree with someone else. This discussion is
really addressing two issues:
1. Are there things in nature and the body of knowledge that we have now
that cannot be explained by evolution and that can only be explained by the
involvement of an intelligent designer? I don't think there are, given the
status of evolution theory as an ongoing process. Fletis thinks there are,
and has thrown out some unconvincing arguments.
2. If 1 is true, how should we handle it in science education? I don't
think 1 is established, but some people, not only Fletis, think that just
asking the question is enough to justify adding ID to curricula.

I for one am not ready to take something else out of science teaching to
make room for ID, which is still a philosophical or theological question.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

OK, I'll try again--paraphrase the view of the ID'ers on what the role
of THE "I" in ID is playing in the development of speicies since the
beginning as observed by a presumed impartial observer---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


ID isn't a movement, it's a belief. It's exactly what it says...
Intelligent Design. There are groups who believe God's hand is still on
every aspect of life on earth and there are (probably more) groups that are
content to accept the notion of creation at God's hand. Both are ID
believers. Neither can be said to represent "the movement".

IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

Oh, besides things like a soul, a spiritual realm, life after death and the
likes,...no.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

OK, I'll try again--paraphrase the view of the ID'ers on what the role
of THE "I" in ID is playing in the development of speicies since the
beginning as observed by a presumed impartial observer---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


ID isn't a movement, it's a belief. It's exactly what it says...

The former I'll agree, certainly. The latter is hard to swallow as
"exactly" owing to...

Intelligent Design. There are groups who believe God's hand is still on
every aspect of life on earth and there are (probably more) groups that are
content to accept the notion of creation at God's hand. Both are ID
believers. Neither can be said to represent "the movement".

....the above.

IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

Oh, besides things like a soul, a spiritual realm, life after death and the
likes,...no.

Precisely my point that under those guidelines it has nothing to do w/
science and rightly belongs as a basis of a philosophy. Which is not
what the proponents in such places as the KS BOE and in GA are
advocating....

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


I have my personal opinions on that but they aren't relevent
to the discussion. My point isn't that my particular beliefs be
taught as science but that science can't rule out a designer.
There is no conflict between understanding things as well
as we are able and recognizing the possibility that it isn't
all a happy accident.


OK, I'll try again--paraphrase the view of the ID'ers on what the role
of THE "I" in ID is playing in the development of speicies since the
beginning as observed by a presumed impartial observer


That he's the designer. How or when he did it is a matter of religion.


---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


The "movement" isn't that specific, anyone that believes in a god
that acted purposely, believes in an intelligent designer.


IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?


The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical
world's existence, the mind or life in general.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"...
---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


The "movement" isn't that specific, anyone that believes in a god
that acted purposely, believes in an intelligent designer.


No, _the movement_ is much more specific than just the agregation
of believers in a god that act spurposefully. The overwhleming
majority of those believers are not part of a _movement_.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

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


There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list
ostensibly supports.


If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as
the cause what do you suppose is left?


Everything else, of course.


Like what?

Like the ones I stated below. Crimony!



The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Dawinian theory should be encouraged."

No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any
mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory.
Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others
there may be.


Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions?


Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID?


Evidently you don't either.

I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction
between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any
others.

Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.

You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation
does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'.

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth"
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the
realm of science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...


I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and
dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you
don't see the answers.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
....
IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical
world's existence, the mind or life in general.

I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the
realm of science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...

I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and
dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you
don't see the answers.

No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does
this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we
observe or doesn't it?

Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Do you seriously doubt that many of the people pushing
for 'ID' in the public schools are not the same people
who were previously pushing for 'creation science' in
the public schools?


Unfortunately, this is too true. I'm all for ID discussions in schools, but
I'm not in favor at all of Ken Hamm's stuff there. I'm not even in favor of
Ken Hamm's stuff in churches.

--

-Mike-

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
...
IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical
world's existence, the mind or life in general.

I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion.


What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us
being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning.
The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened
so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there
doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as
the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one
to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

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


There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list
ostensibly supports.


If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as
the cause what do you suppose is left?


Everything else, of course.


Like what?

Like the ones I stated below. Crimony!


You didn't state any. You mention one, Lamarck, in this post. So you
believe those who are questioning the validity of Darwinian Evolution
would favor a pre-Darwinian model instead? I don't think it is
seriously considered as part of evolution nor has been for some time.
Certainly, DNA testing can shoot it down these days.




The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Dawinian theory should be encouraged."

No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any
mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory.
Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others
there may be.


Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions?


Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID?


They all fall under Darwinian Evolution a far as I can tell.


Evidently you don't either.

I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction
between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any
others.


Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.


Nope. I must have missed that day.


You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation
does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'.


Huh??? Surely you jest?

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? ...



If you feel like taking a break from your reading about ID you
might consider reading a little about Cosmology. The Big
Bang Theory dos not hold that something came out of nothing.


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. ...



The Big Bang Theory presumes the sum of mass and energy of the
universe was always the same and always will be.


And this sum of mass/energy came from where? Or is *it* eternal?
(Thereby making you a sort of pantheist.)

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? ...



If you feel like taking a break from your reading about ID you
might consider reading a little about Cosmology. The Big
Bang Theory dos not hold that something came out of nothing.


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. So where
exactly did the building materials come from in this massive
construction project? If you have an answer for this question
than reapply it iteratively to the preceding point. This
leads you to the same possibilities I pointed out in my very
first post on the matter in this thread.

...

Well, there are a number of competing theories. The "Big Bang" is
clearly (and has been reconized since the beginning as being) incomplete
in that there are numerical singularities in early formulations. The
techniques to remove more and more of those are the prime areas of
current research. It's for precisely such reasons that newer
developments such as string theory have come into play--because the
existing theories were understood to have limitations. That's how
science works--one goes as far as one theory will take one, then builds
on it to see where to go from there. It's simply a continuation of the
process started by Newton in the Principia where modern cosmology can be
said to start.

And the superstrings sprang from where? And whatever they're built with
came from where? By induction, either there is an infinite regression of
building blocks or a time-transcendant starting point...

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

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the
realm of science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...


I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and
dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you
don't see the answers.


No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does
this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we
observe or doesn't it?

Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question...


No, it's like asking if you've stopped beating your mom yet.
You're question presupposes a false premise. Intelligent Design
doesn't specify when or how something was designed, just
*if* it had been.

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

[snip]

Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. [snip]

Not so. The best and clearest explanation I've seen is in Greene's The
Fabric of the Cosmos. The Big Bang took place after some preconditions were
met, and he includes a timeline in the explanation. Regards --

World Traveler wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


wrote:


[snip]


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. [snip]


Not so. The best and clearest explanation I've seen is in Greene's The
Fabric of the Cosmos. The Big Bang took place after some preconditions were
met, and he includes a timeline in the explanation. Regards --



And these preconditions arose from where?

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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

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


There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list
ostensibly supports.


If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as
the cause what do you suppose is left?


Everything else, of course.


Like what?

Like the ones I stated below. Crimony!


You didn't state any.

False.

You mention one, Lamarck, in this post. So you
believe those who are questioning the validity of Darwinian Evolution
would favor a pre-Darwinian model instead?

Uh, I thought that was your position.

I don't think it is
seriously considered as part of evolution nor has been for some time.
Certainly, DNA testing can shoot it down these days.


ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor has
been for some time.


The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Dawinian theory should be encouraged."

No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any
mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory.
Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others
there may be.


Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions?


Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID?


They all fall under Darwinian Evolution a far as I can tell.


That is because you do not understand them, even after looking
up Lamarck.


Evidently you don't either.

I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction
between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any
others.


Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.


Nope. I must have missed that day.


Evidently, if you ever studied biology at all, you never got
up to a normal high school level of understanding.


You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation
does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'.


Huh??? Surely you jest?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? ...



If you feel like taking a break from your reading about ID you
might consider reading a little about Cosmology. The Big
Bang Theory dos not hold that something came out of nothing.


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. ...



The Big Bang Theory presumes the sum of mass and energy of the
universe was always the same and always will be.


And this sum of mass/energy came from where? Or is *it* eternal?
(Thereby making you a sort of pantheist.)


That remains unknown, same as in any other non Faith-based
cosmology.

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Precisely my point that under those guidelines it has nothing to do w/
science and rightly belongs as a basis of a philosophy. Which is not
what the proponents in such places as the KS BOE and in GA are
advocating....

Correct - it has nothing to do with science with the possible exception of
it remaining a consideration as the starting point of everything. The proof
of that is really no harder or less hard than proving the starting point of
everything any other way. But - since there is so much ground to cover
between where understanding lies today and whatever the point of origin was
it's hardly a pressing matter to science. Philosophy? Sure - I agree.

--

-Mike-

wrote in message
ups.com...


Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.


Holy Cow! We have to go back *that* far??? Man, this is getting hard!

--

-Mike-

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...
The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning.
...

What math is that? Could you please show your work?

--

FF

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.


Holy Cow!

No, that's religion again.


We have to go back *that* far??? Man, this is getting hard!


It is VERY hard for those who clearly were not paying attention
the first time around.

--

FF

It must be time to mention the strong anthropic priciple: The fact that we
(human, organic, carbon-based) are here to observe and argue and consider
these issues places some amazing constraints on many physical, chemical,
biological variables. But not a reference to a designer, just serious
limits on what it might have done.

No, don't throw that!

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrop...al_Pri nciple

and/or http://www.google.com/search?q=%22st...pic+principle%

Even if you think scientific truth has been revealed by some designer, these
are significant limits on possibilities.

Steve

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? ...



If you feel like taking a break from your reading about ID you
might consider reading a little about Cosmology. The Big
Bang Theory dos not hold that something came out of nothing.


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. ...



The Big Bang Theory presumes the sum of mass and energy of the
universe was always the same and always will be.


And this sum of mass/energy came from where? Or is *it* eternal?
(Thereby making you a sort of pantheist.)

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

Odinn wrote:
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.


How long ago was it that Evolution was wrong and 'creation science'
was right?

--

FF

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
World Traveler wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


wrote:


[snip]


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. [snip]


Not so. The best and clearest explanation I've seen is in Greene's The
Fabric of the Cosmos. The Big Bang took place after some preconditions
were met, and he includes a timeline in the explanation. Regards --



And these preconditions arose from where?

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

Read the book. It looks like you'd prefer an endless loop, which can just
as well be tied to the ID nonsense. If there's an intelligent designer,
then who created the intelligent designer? And if that, then who created .
.. . etc.

To have any rationale discussion of ID, there first has to be a rationale
hypothesis explaining the ID format. So far, I've only seen snippets that
basically repeat items from the Old Testament, for which fossil records,
cosmological tests and observations, etc., are in disagreement.

Now, if someone wanted to develop an ID scenario that some intelligent
designer created the structure that led to the Big Bang, and kept hands off
from that point, as the universe evolved in a unified way, that would be one
thing, but so far, no one is suggesting that and there's no evidence to
support it. There is a wonderful symmetry about the coordination between
gravity, time, energy, space, etc., that ties everything together. ID
doesn't fit in the observable development of the universe. The current
arguments for ID are contradicted by physical observation of the development
of species, fossil records, and a variety of tests and experiments on the
behaviour of energy, time and gravity. ID is irrelevant to the testing,
experimentation and results in cosmology that have been taking place since
early in the 20th Century.

And if you're actually interested in this subject rather than passing time
in an uninformed way, do take a look at Greene's works and others that have
good discussions on time, gravity, the Big Bang and related theories.
Fabric of the Cosmos is not only a good read, but it's a credible and
understandable explanation of the interaction between gravity, time, energy,
etc.

Regards --

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

Limiting the number of children to a replacement value would accomplish
the same thing without the killing. But I can hear the screams of the
"go forth and multiply" crowd from here :-).


Why single out just that crowd? I can hear the screams from a lot of other
sectors as well.

True. We seem to be genetically programmed to make as many little
copies of our genes as possible. Was a valid strategy once, but is
definitely a problem today.

And I singled out the religious types (perhaps unfairly) because of a
printed interview a while back with a representative of a rather far
right Christian group who said they would win the creation/evolution
argument because, and I quote, "We'll outbreed you." At least that was
an honest response.

Yes, I know all religious folks aren't like that.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
...

...So warfare is now, in all senses, bad for the species.


Not absolutely necessarily...there are still areas where overpopulation
could be alleviated by such means, resulting in better standard of
living for the surviving.

True, but there would be no mechanism to ensure that the survivors were
among the smarter or stronger. Ensure may be too strong, facilitate
might be a better.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


And the superstrings sprang from where? And whatever they're built with
came from where? By induction, either there is an infinite regression of
building blocks or a time-transcendant starting point...


Same place the intelligent designer came from. And whatever created him
came from.

Why is one any more palatable than the other?

It's turtles, all the way down.

Is "I don't know" that hard to say?