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

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.


Non Sequitor. Check out the 'Discovery Institute' webpages.
Current articles, in addition to 'ID' and anti-evolution stuff
include:

Well - here's a cut and paste from the website. This is from their position
statement the current ACLU suit against the Dover, PA school which is
requiring ID in the classroom...

"Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions
of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to
get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided
policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be
politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of
intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community,
points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy
in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about
intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it
accurately and objectively.

"Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we
recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian
evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also
scientific criticisms of the theory."

Hardly looks like a hiden ID agenda...

I am pleased to see that, for now, they stopped short of
demanding 'ID' be taught in the public schools.

DUnno abotu you but I do not believe there is "the ACLU's
effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal".
I am happy to believe that the ACLU opposes the teaching of
religous doctine, like 'ID' in public schools.

This is a position statement that is carefully
crafted to hide thier real agenda. Sort of like issuing an
order that prisoners are to be treated humanely followed by
a memo redefining torture such that water torture is not
torture. You would have to be drinking not to understand
the message.



Rediscovering Narnia: The Continuing Relevance of C.S. Lewis's Narnian
Chronicles

Please Fred - this is some sort of an upcoming event in what appears to be
an organization which concerns itself with more than issues of ID vs
evolution. Would you critique every university in America because of the
arts-fartsy stuff that goes on within the campus? I noticed that you
selected the more sensational events from their calendar and did not include
the likes of...
October 21, 2005
Darwin and Design, An International Science Conference
Prague, Czech Republic ...

I do not regard discussion of CS Lewis's works to be _sensational_.

I selected topics not directly related to ID, or even to science
per se so as to show that teh _discovery Institute_ rationale for
existance is not scientific discourse. Plainly they are lobbying
for Pat Robertson's values.




Miers: The Recusal Trap
Why the Senate should reject Harriet Miers' nomination

So - political opinions are now a component of validating a theory on the
origins of life?

I don't think so. Hence my opinion of their agenda. Opposing
her nomination is a component of Pat Robertson's values.



What is 'ICR'?

Institute For Creation Research.

Thanks.


Fred - I'm kind of surprised at the stab at Discover Institute - coming from
you. I didn't know a thing about DI before you raised the questions in your
post, and I don't know a lot more now given that I've only spent a short
time on their web site. What I did see though was a decent, thought
provoking presentation. What I did not see was a crack pot site that I was
prepared for based on your post. In short - I don't think you advanced any
cause with your post.


What I see is a lobbying organization. 'ID' is the _only_ scientific
movement they are promoting. This leads me to conclude that they
didn't pick 'ID' because of its alleged scientific merits, but
becuase of its compatiablility with their overall philosophy.
To understand what this implies, DAGS on 'Lysenko'.

You did not comment on their editorial on stem cell research, leaving
it out of your reply. Perhaps you had not had time to read it yet.
Please do. Their position appears to be based no what I would
personally consider to be perfectly legitimate considerations.

They are not scientific considerations.

--

FF

You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable
exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare the rest of us.
If you come to an agreed position, let us know.

Steve

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

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big
Bang" have one or more singularities...

I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it.

You wrote "In other words, the math doesn't work out yet."

How does that equate to what you said I said?

I interpreted that as you were talking of the commonly cited problem in
cosmological models.

That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area
of
research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a
priori, but
there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will
not
eventually reach fruition.

True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything
any more than we should teach that everything will have a
materialistic answer...someday...hopefully.

What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it
takes
a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more
than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are
not
really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems
to be
the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including
myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to
speak,
that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of
reaching
the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible.

It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the
lack
of acceptance by many.

Acceptance of what? You aren't clear.

Modern cosmological physics.

I think most people are more concerned about who's humping who in
Hollywood but that it isn't relevent either.

You lost me there...it seems relevant to me that a reason for many
people being willing to accept the ID or other argument _as science_ is
that they are unable to easily comprehend the bases of much of modern
physics.

...

So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential?
Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID?

That's the definition of science...the continual search for an
explanation for physical processes by a following the scientific
method.

I was addressing your assertion, not the scientific principle.

I'm lost again...my assertion is that the scientific principle _is_ the
thing...

...
Any math. Any context.

2+2 = 4. That seems to work. You're making absolutely no sense
now...

To the contrary, you took issue with my comment that the math doesn't
work out yet, you took issue with it, while reafirming my statement.

I didn't understand the point you were trying to make--and still don't.

...

I guess if you can't accept basic arithmetic, I have to respond "any
theory".

I see a pattern here. You can't seem to discuss this honestly.

I can't follow the argument you're trying to make which seems to move
from one response to another...

I was "underneath the impression" (to quote a malaprop from a
former colleague ) that we were sorta' talking about the origin of
the universe and whether it is theoretically possible to learn the
"how"
of that and the subsequent evolution of the solar system and what we
observe around us.

Yes, we were. So why the comment about simple math?

Because you made a comment about "any math" which left me befuddled
about what you were talking about...

The difference is whether one has a fundamental belief that there is no
possibility for a scientific explanation or not. I see nothing that
implies to me that we are fundamentally prevented from coming to that
understanding. The "why" and if there is a "who" is outside the realm
of science.

I thought that why something happened was part of the scientific process.
Your faith is greater than mine but I don't see your point here.

No, the initial "why" is a philosophical question, not scientific. It
can answer a the "why" of why an apple falls down instead of up, but not
the metaphysical "big why" which is the one which I was assuming was the
one under discussion.

So I come back to the question I asked before. Did this designer do
the
design before the beginning of the construction phase or during it in
your philosophy?

My personal views on how or why the designer worked is irrelevent to if
one exists. I've said that many times now. I don't want to play the "my
religious views are better than your religious views" game.

I don't give a rat's patootie about your personal views per se, although
it's hard to know how to respond to an argument when one can't determine
what the argument is. I'm simply trying to find out what is the
position of this "I" in the ID which you're saying you believe is the
correct scientifid basis of everything. Unless one knows what that
position is, it's impossible to know what one is arguing for or against.

...

"Steve Peterson"
You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare
the rest of us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.


Have you considered not reading the posts?

Steve Peterson wrote:

snip

Questioners are shown the door with condescension, ad homina attack, and
s******ing comments about their "idiocy". Mind you, all in an arena
of first propositions that cannot be proven or disproven anyway.


Can we put this one to bed, it is continually annoying for you to keep
making this charge erroneously, and it distracts from any meaningful point

If you want a really pedantic exchange, I'd be happy to go back and
quote messages from these threads that support my contention. Your
saying that I am "making this charge erroneously" is easily refuted
by simple quotations. You can run, but you cannot hide.

you may be trying to make. It is "ad hominem" and means to attack the

More condescension? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly)
that "ad homina" was the plural of "ad hominem". But I'm clearly not
as smart as you since you've managed to read great big part of
the Wickipedia ...

person rather than the point that person may have made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Steve




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

Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you could still post
something worth reading. But the "You didn't" vs "I did" exchanges have
ceased being of interest, at least to me. If that is all you plan to post,
I will be happy to send your posts straight to trash. There is still the
complication that Duane does, in reality, make some posts of interest, just
not in your little ****ing contest.

Steve

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Steve Peterson"
You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable
exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare the rest of
us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.


Have you considered not reading the posts?

Had I known my slurious post regarding G Bush would have spawned this
cluster **** I never would have posted. The length of the thread proves that
the topic is completly useless to discuss

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Steve Peterson"

You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare
the rest of us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.

Have you considered not reading the posts?


Have you considered a little much-needed snipping?

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

snip
you may be trying to make. It is "ad hominem" and means to attack the

More condescension? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly)
that "ad homina" was the plural of "ad hominem". But I'm clearly not
as smart as you since you've managed to read great big part of
the Wickipedia ...

person rather than the point that person may have made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Steve
OK, On October 3, you said: " And of course, we should trust someone whose
defense of "reality"
is grounded in ad homina attack and whose claims to knowledge
are unsubstantiated or perhaps even unsubstantiable. "

Here's your oft repeated error - ad hominem is an adjective, which modifies
a noun. If ad homina is plural, it needs a plural noun, such as attacks.
If you don't know how to use it, don't.

And actually, I have read other encyclopedias and dictionaries, etc. But
Wikipedia is convenient because you can give a link as a reference. A
reference to "the dictionary on Steve's desk" is less convenient.

Have a nice day.

Steve

"Steve Peterson"
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you could still post something worth reading.



You're very generous. Sounds like you ran out of ammo but
then again blanks don't do much anyway. Is that better?


But the "You didn't" vs "I did" exchanges have ceased being of interest, at least to me.


Odd that you read them.


If that is all you plan to post, I will be happy to send your posts straight to trash. There is still the complication that Duane
does, in reality, make some posts of interest, just not in your little ****ing contest.

Steve

In other words you can't refute my comments.


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...

"Steve Peterson"
You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare
the rest of us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.


Have you considered not reading the posts?

"Larry Blanchard"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Steve Peterson"

You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare
the rest of us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.

Have you considered not reading the posts?


Have you considered a little much-needed snipping?


I have, and did some but left in what was necessary for me to
follow the conversation.

"Battleax"

Had I known my slurious post


Slurious. I like that, I think you got a new word there.

regarding G Bush would have spawned this
cluster **** I never would have posted. The length of the thread proves that
the topic is completly useless to discuss


So no one responds to the good ones?

Steve Peterson wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Steve Peterson wrote:


snip

you may be trying to make. It is "ad hominem" and means to attack the

More condescension? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly)
that "ad homina" was the plural of "ad hominem". But I'm clearly not
as smart as you since you've managed to read great big part of
the Wickipedia ...


person rather than the point that person may have made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Steve

OK, On October 3, you said: " And of course, we should trust someone whose
defense of "reality"
is grounded in ad homina attack and whose claims to knowledge
are unsubstantiated or perhaps even unsubstantiable. "

Here's your oft repeated error - ad hominem is an adjective, which modifies
a noun. If ad homina is plural, it needs a plural noun, such as attacks.
If you don't know how to use it, don't.


I stand (sit) corrected ... be aware though, that "attack" can be read
as plural (i.e., As a body of "attacks"). But I will bow to your
point here.

Have an even nicer day,


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

Does anyone else realize that this thread has been running OT for about 3
weeks?

Steve

"Battleax" wrote in message
...
Had I known my slurious post regarding G Bush would have spawned this
cluster **** I never would have posted. The length of the thread proves
that
the topic is completly useless to discuss

Why, oh why, am I still engaged in this?

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Steve Peterson"
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you could still
post something worth reading.



You're very generous. Sounds like you ran out of ammo but
then again blanks don't do much anyway. Is that better?


But the "You didn't" vs "I did" exchanges have ceased being of interest,
at least to me.


Odd that you read them.

Actually, I skimmed them to get some idea if there was a new thought.
Usually not.


In other words you can't refute my comments.

Your comments are utterly of no interest to me. You can believe whatever
you want, and you can argue it with anyone who wants to play. My interest
is in the ID proponents who want to teach it in science classes, without
establishing a scientific basis for their claims of such blather as
irreducible complexity. If you believe there is a Creator who has been
directing evolution, and that evolution can't explain us, who are 98% equal
to chimpanzees (DNA), please continue to do so. Just don't try to inject ID
into science classes. Philosophy, theology, no problem


Steve


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Steve Peterson"
You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable
exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare the rest of
us. If you come to an agreed position, let us know.


Have you considered not reading the posts?

"Steve Peterson"
Why, oh why, am I still engaged in this?

"Fletis Humplebacker"
"Steve Peterson"
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you could still post something worth reading.



You're very generous. Sounds like you ran out of ammo but
then again blanks don't do much anyway. Is that better?


But the "You didn't" vs "I did" exchanges have ceased being of interest, at least to me.


Odd that you read them.


Actually, I skimmed them to get some idea if there was a new thought. Usually not.


Odd that you skim them.


In other words you can't refute my comments.


Your comments are utterly of no interest to me. You can believe whatever you want, and you can argue it with anyone who wants to
play. My interest is in the ID proponents who want to teach it in science classes, without establishing a scientific basis for
their claims of such blather as irreducible complexity.


But there's no scientific basis for teaching that it happened on
it's own. That's what has and is happening. ID is simply saying
that scenario doesn't look likely. Many scientists do see evidence
for design so it's reasonable to teach it as an alternative possibility.
I know it's the same old point but your bias shouldn't be the rule
in tax funded education.


If you believe there is a Creator who has been directing evolution, and that evolution can't explain us, who are 98% equal to
chimpanzees (DNA), please continue to do so.


Whether is was programed to happen that way at the begining
or was directed later on doesn't change whether it was designed
or not. And that 2% apparently makes alot of difference so I
don't see your point.


Just don't try to inject ID into science classes. Philosophy, theology, no problem


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. The voters will decide in the end and I'm glad they are
waking up to it.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Steve Peterson"

Why, oh why, am I still engaged in this?


Because you want the Last Word?

Ducks and Runs grinning with no harm intended....

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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.

--

FF

wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...


No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


And I will affirm a materialistic approach to textiles ...

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


And I will affirm a materialistic approach to textiles ...


What! No burkas! Infidel!

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.

Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

And you don't understand the point--science is a naturalistic (as
opposed to "suernaturalistic") approach to an explanation of the world
which you (following others) have labelled "materialistic" and now use
that as a perjorative to mean what you want it to mean. That's wrong
and needs to be corrected.

The National Academy of Science has just released a report " Rising Above
The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future" which includes the need for improving science education.
In reading the executive summary, I did not see a recommendation to dilute
the science curriculum with pseudoscience of any kind, including ID.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html

Steve

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



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.

Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

And you don't understand the point--science is a naturalistic (as
opposed to "suernaturalistic") approach to an explanation of the world
which you (following others) have labelled "materialistic" and now use
that as a perjorative to mean what you want it to mean. That's wrong
and needs to be corrected.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


And I will affirm a materialistic approach to textiles ...


And I think this thread has (or should have) run out of steam - but it's
a nice pun :-).

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.

I understand that position to be contrary to logic.

I certainly would argue that, from a scientific perspective,
it is wrong to teach that science will or can answer all
questions. But to move from that position to an affirmation
of 'ID' requires, literally, a leap of faith.

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. ...

No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.

Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.


And you don't understand the point--science is a naturalistic (as
opposed to "suernaturalistic") approach to an explanation of the world
which you (following others) have labelled "materialistic" and now use
that as a perjorative to mean what you want it to mean. That's wrong
and needs to be corrected.


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.


I understand that position to be contrary to logic.

I certainly would argue that, from a scientific perspective,
it is wrong to teach that science will or can answer all
questions. But to move from that position to an affirmation
of 'ID' requires, literally, a leap of faith.


No more faith than what is being taught now. It takes more faith to
believe it's all a happy accident. Some balance in school would be
the logical answer.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.


While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.


Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.

Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?

The part where you want to add something other to science to the science
curriculum.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.

Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?

The part where you want to add something other to science to the science
curriculum.

That should have been "other than" rather than "other to", of course.

I'll note it wasn't I who raised "materialism" in the "debate". You say
science is being 'misused' as materialism but complain that there should
be (apparently, this is where I still fail to understand what you really
want) a "science" that relies on a supernatural explanation for at least
some portion of its explanations. Which ones and how to determine which
are and aren't, you haven't addressed.

I'm understanding what you want is something other than a
"scientific-only" education that can be achieved by a church or
parochial school (poorly if it's done as part of the science curriculum
imo) or in a philosophy or comparative religion class, for example.
But, as I understand what would satisfy you, is out of the realm of
science, therefore I cannot accept it as a part of the science
curriculum, per se.

And, w/ that, finally recognizing the insurmountable impasse, I do
withdraw, Steve.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.


Do you have an opinion on the implications of nonevocation of
God in the public schools?

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.


Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?


The part where you want to add something other to science to the science
curriculum.


No, that's the part that made it through. Your mind filters out the
part where the science curriculum has had something other than
science for some time now.

"Duane Bozarth"
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.

Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?

The part where you want to add something other to science to the science
curriculum.

That should have been "other than" rather than "other to", of course.

I'll note it wasn't I who raised "materialism" in the "debate".


I thought you did. Wasn't it you who said that natural answers will be
found?


You say
science is being 'misused' as materialism but complain that there should
be (apparently, this is where I still fail to understand what you really
want) a "science" that relies on a supernatural explanation for at least
some portion of its explanations.


I don't know why you're still confused. I've stated many times now that
ID should be introduced as a possibility when discussing origins as
an alternative to a naturalist answer. The reason being science cannot
declare a naturalist answer.



Which ones and how to determine which
are and aren't, you haven't addressed.


I did many times. It didn't get past your filters.


I'm understanding what you want is something other than a
"scientific-only" education that can be achieved by a church or
parochial school (poorly if it's done as part of the science curriculum
imo) or in a philosophy or comparative religion class, for example.
But, as I understand what would satisfy you, is out of the realm of
science, therefore I cannot accept it as a part of the science
curriculum, per se.

And, w/ that, finally recognizing the insurmountable impasse, I do
withdraw, Steve.

You blocked yourself from understanding the other side, which sadly
is all too common.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.

Do you have an opinion on the implications of nonevocation of
God in the public schools?


Your words are curious. What do you mean by evoking God
and in what context?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.

Do you have an opinion on the implications of nonevocation of
God in the public schools?


Your words are curious. What do you mean by evoking God
and in what context?

My apology, I mispelt 'invocation'.

There are infinitely many ways to invoke God.

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.

--

FF

wrote:

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.


To which the proper response, in the context of biolgy, would be
"Where's your evidence?"

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:




No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.

Do you have an opinion on the implications of nonevocation of
God in the public schools?


Your words are curious. What do you mean by evoking God
and in what context?


My apology, I mispelt 'invocation'.

There are infinitely many ways to invoke God.

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.

Since no one suggested that as a teaching I understand
your purpose for asking the question now. You are trying
to smear the opposite side. All too typically, I'm afraid.

More honestly put, the teacher could say that we can't
account for some mechanisms with natural explanations,
even life itself, but we hope to someday. However, there
are some scientists that believe in a purposeful design.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
wrote:


A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.


To which the proper response, in the context of biolgy, would be
"Where's your evidence?"


You are starting to get it. When they suggest that life started
on it's own the proper response is "Where's your evidence?"

Or do you prefer that science be misused as a materialistic
theology?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:


There are infinitely many ways to invoke God.

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.

Since no one suggested that as a teaching ...

Until now, I hadn't been able to deduce what you would have
a teacher say. Thanks for clearing that up below.


More honestly put, the teacher could say that we can't
account for some mechanisms with natural explanations,
even life itself, but we hope to someday. However, there
are some scientists that believe in a purposeful design.

What defintion of "purposeful design" should the teacher give
the class?

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
wrote:


A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.


To which the proper response, in the context of biolgy, would be
"Where's your evidence?"


You are starting to get it. When they suggest that life started
on it's own ...

You claim "they suggest that life started on it's own ".

Where is your evidence that this is being said in a biology
text or by a teacher in classroom.

--

FF