I'm back.

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

What would be the next statement? There is no point in looking further for
a natural explanation, none is possible because ...?

IMHO, someone will keep searching, and further explanations will be found.
Gradually, these cases requiring "supernatural" explanation will succumb to
a natural explanation, unless the ID proponents succeed in their real aim of
choking off research. In that case, the US, which has been the leader in
the biological revolution underway, will begin to fall behind India, Japan,
Europe.

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

Steve

Steve Peterson wrote:

....
... unless the ID proponents succeed in their real aim of
choking off research. In that case, the US, which has been the leader in
the biological revolution underway, will begin to fall behind India, Japan,
Europe.

Unfortunately, in some areas they already have...the S Koreans (!) must
be included in the camp as well....

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?

Design that appears to be beyond random chance, such as
matter, cosmic forces and life forms.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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?

Design that appears to be beyond random chance, such as
matter, cosmic forces and life forms.

Is the context that matter, cosmic forces,
and life forms are are a sort of design? That is not consistant
with any definition of 'design' that I know.

Or is the context that matter, cosmic forces, and life forms
are a sort of random chance? But that isn't consistant with
any definition of 'chance' that I know.

In additon to resolving that abiguity, I think you need to work
on that definition a little. Especially the part about 'cosmic
forces' WTF are they?

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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?

Design that appears to be beyond random chance, such as
matter, cosmic forces and life forms.

Is the context that matter, cosmic forces,
and life forms are are a sort of design? That is not consistant
with any definition of 'design' that I know.

Or is the context that matter, cosmic forces, and life forms
are a sort of random chance? But that isn't consistant with
any definition of 'chance' that I know.

In additon to resolving that abiguity, I think you need to work
on that definition a little. Especially the part about 'cosmic
forces' WTF are they?


Your definitions differ widely from the English language
that I know. No wonder you didn't follow it too well.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

I repeat, what is the next statement? How does a teacher follow up this
very cogent assertion? I assert that making specific statements will allow
evolutionists to investigate and counter. And if this is the end of the
argument, it leaves hanging the question "what is it about this step in
evolution that makes it unnatural so that only a pre-existing (notice how
this term keeps evolving) can account for it?"

Still wondering.
Steve

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


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

I repeat, what is the next statement?

BTFOOM, I wouldn't make the statement in the first place.

I was just providing Mr Humplebacker with the example he
requested. As you will recall, he didn't like it either.
That makes three of us.

--

FF

"Steve Peterson"

"Fletis Humplebacker"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

I repeat, what is the next statement? How does a teacher follow up this very cogent assertion?


Those aren't my words.


I assert that making specific statements will allow evolutionists to investigate and counter. And if this is the end of the
argument, it leaves hanging the question "what is it about this step in evolution that makes it unnatural so that only a
pre-existing (notice how this term keeps evolving) can account for it?"

Still wondering.
Steve


I'm not the one evolving the word either. Also I said many times
that ID doesn't cripple science. I believe that was your assertion.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

....
... I said many times that ID doesn't cripple science. ...

You've said it but have yet to explain how you manage to mix the two
and not do so.

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

"Fletis Humplebacker"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

I repeat, what is the next statement? How does a teacher follow up this
very cogent assertion?


Those aren't my words.

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

I assert that making specific statements will allow evolutionists to
investigate and counter. And if this is the end of the argument, it
leaves hanging the question "what is it about this step in evolution that
makes it unnatural so that only a pre-existing intelligence (edited,
meant that before)(notice how this term keeps evolving) can account for
it?"

Still wondering.
Steve


I'm not the one evolving the word either. Also I said many times
that ID doesn't cripple science. I believe that was your assertion.

Of course it does. If investigation of evidence, in the fossil record or in
theory or whatever, encounters something that can be shown to be
supernatural - i.e. cannot be explained by a logical sequence of natural
events, what is the scientists next action, other than to move on to some
other question.

Waiting with ever-greater excitement.

Steve

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

"Steve Peterson"

"Fletis Humplebacker"



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



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.

I repeat, what is the next statement? How does a teacher follow up this
very cogent assertion?


Those aren't my words.


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

I assert that making specific statements will allow evolutionists to
investigate and counter. And if this is the end of the argument, it
leaves hanging the question "what is it about this step in evolution that
makes it unnatural so that only a pre-existing intelligence (edited,
meant that before)(notice how this term keeps evolving) can account for
it?"

Still wondering.
Steve


I'm not the one evolving the word either. Also I said many times
that ID doesn't cripple science. I believe that was your assertion.


Of course it does. If investigation of evidence, in the fossil record or in
theory or whatever, encounters something that can be shown to be
supernatural - i.e. cannot be explained by a logical sequence of natural
events, what is the scientists next action, other than to move on to some
other question.

Waiting with ever-greater excitement.


My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:


So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher
should use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other
scientific theory, has met an impasse, and cannot advance without
invoking an intelligent designer?




My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.


You're really good at evading the question, aren't you?

We're still waiting for your answer - although without much hope of
getting one.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:


So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher
should use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other
scientific theory, has met an impasse, and cannot advance without
invoking an intelligent designer?




My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.


You're really good at evading the question, aren't you?

Oh, he's not good at evading at all, simply ignores what he doesn't like
to hear--as do all others of his ilk I've run into.

Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP


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

OK:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level. One consequence of this is that, when
faced with a non-demonstrable/verifyable theory such as interspecial
evolution, today's Science assumes that the indicidental evidence
supporting such a view will (in principle) be explained in entirely
reductionst terms in the future. In summary, Science today never
looks outside of the materialist/reductionist methods to explain
what exists.

This approach to Science has yielded many practical and demonstrable
benefits. However, it creates an inherent inability for Science to
*ever* speak to the question of "How did it all begin?" There are,
however, some meta-Scientific proposals about how we might answer this
question. "Meta-Scientific" usually (but not always) refers to systems
of thought that *accept* the methods of Science as far as they go, but
propose additional ideas about the nature of what brought the Universe
into being initially. Several common Meta-Scientific explanations
include:


- The Universe is itself everlasting - it had no beginning and will have
no end. This position is held by very few people.

- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.

- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it into being
by an intentional act of creation. This position is suggested (but not
demonstrated) by the vast complexity required to create and sustain life
on Earth. People who hold this position argue that such complexity
could never be achieved by random selection processes and that the
complexity itself is prima facia evidence for the presence of a
"designer." This position is consistent with most traditional religious
and philosophical schools up through the 20th Century. It is enjoying
a resurgence in the 21st Century as serious questions about the
sufficiency of the materialist/reductionist assumptions of Science have
been raised. There is great resistence to this idea in traditional
Science.

Now - YOU tell us, why on earth this is so doggone offensive to the
high priests of Science defending their educational turf?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Science has no high priests. I already covered this: no Pope, no bishops,
either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this statement doesn't
offend me at all, and it will fit very nicely into a philosophy course,
maybe into philosophy of science. In those courses, it can be talked to
death, as it (apparently) is in this news group. It does also state, quite
clearly, that it is not science although it discusses meta-science. It is
about science, a philosophical approach.

What it doesn't do is teach us how to recognize anything in evolution data
or theory that cannot be explained by natural science and therefore must be
due to the influence of an intelligent designer. What are such criteria?
The mere fact that we don't currently know the natural explanation for
something does not prove that we can't learn the natural explanation. No
one claims the theory of evolution is all wrapped up with nothing left to
learn. Neither is gravity, or continental drift, or nucleogenesis, or stem
cells, or superstring theory or .... In your philosophy class you can also
discuss the nature of scientific theories, what is provable and what is not
provable, as well as religious infallibility. Be sure to discuss which
religion is infallible. Since different religions, by definition, have
different credos, tenets, rites, doctrines, ..., only one can be absolutely
correct and infallible and the others must fall short of perfection. Man,
you will have such a great time!

Clearly philosophy. Thanks for your effort in preparing these words. I
have to go make sawdust.

Steve

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

SNIP


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

OK:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level. One consequence of this is that, when
faced with a non-demonstrable/verifyable

verifiable

theory such as interspecial

interspecies

evolution, today's Science assumes that the indicidental

incidental

evidence
supporting such a view will (in principle) be explained in entirely
reductionst terms in the future. In summary, Science today never
looks outside of the materialist/reductionist methods to explain
what exists.

True. Science is the study of phenomena that exist in nature, that arose
from natural causes and lead to natural consequences. As soon as you
include something that isn't natural you have left the realm of science.


This approach to Science has yielded many practical and demonstrable
benefits. However, it creates an inherent inability for Science to
*ever* speak to the question of "How did it all begin?" There are,

Brian Greene suggests that string theory may address this question. Read
"The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos." These works won't
even tax your mathematical abilities.

however, some meta-Scientific proposals about how we might answer this
question. "Meta-Scientific" usually (but not always) refers to systems
of thought that *accept* the methods of Science as far as they go, but
propose additional ideas about the nature of what brought the Universe
into being initially. Several common Meta-Scientific explanations
include:


- The Universe is itself everlasting - it had no beginning and will have
no end. This position is held by very few people.

- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.

- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it
into being
by an intentional act of creation. This position is suggested (but not
demonstrated) by the vast complexity required to create and sustain life
on Earth. People who hold this position argue that such complexity
could never be achieved by random selection processes and that the
complexity itself is prima facia

prima facie, by my dictionary

evidence for the presence of a
"designer." This position is consistent with most traditional religious
and philosophical schools up through the 20th Century. It is enjoying
a resurgence in the 21st Century as serious questions about the
sufficiency of the materialist/reductionist assumptions of Science have
been raised. There is great resistence to this idea in traditional
Science.

Now - YOU tell us, why on earth this is so doggone offensive to the
high priests of Science defending their educational turf?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP


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

OK:

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

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

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

...
"Meta-Scientific" usually (but not always) refers to systems
of thought that *accept* the methods of Science as far as they go, but
propose additional ideas about the nature of what brought the Universe
into being initially. Several common Meta-Scientific explanations
include:


- The Universe is itself everlasting - it had no beginning and will have
no end. This position is held by very few people.

This would seem to include variants of steady state comsmology.
FWITW, the reason they have fallen out of favor is because they
are consistant with either the observed intergalactic expansion,
or conservation of matter and energy, but not both.


- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.


I do not see how being magical would put th eoriigns of the universe
beyond conmprehension.

- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it into being
by an intentional act of creation.

I do not see how this is any more compreehnsible, or any
less magical than the previous case. In short, I see the
two as a classic example of distinction witout a difference.
Certainly it is a dichotomy without an observable (e.g.
materialistic) difference.

This position [ID, FF] is suggested (but not
demonstrated) by the vast complexity required to create and sustain life
on Earth. People who hold this position argue that such complexity
could never be achieved by random selection processes and that the
complexity itself is prima facia evidence for the presence of a
"designer." This position is consistent with most traditional religious
and philosophical schools up through the 20th Century.

Agreed.

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


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

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

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

--

FF

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP

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

OK:

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


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

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

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

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

SNIP

- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.



I do not see how being magical would put th eoriigns of the universe
beyond conmprehension.

Not the point. There are schools of epistemological "magic" that
say some or even all things are not knowable. Good examples include
Christian Science and New Age religions as well (to some degree)
traditional Eastern mysticism.



- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it into being
by an intentional act of creation.


I do not see how this is any more compreehnsible, or any
less magical than the previous case. In short, I see the
two as a classic example of distinction witout a difference.
Certainly it is a dichotomy without an observable (e.g.
materialistic) difference.

You are missing the point. We are talking about the first propositions
of systems that are *assumed*. In the case of ID, it assumes a desginer
because of what appears to its adherents as "common sense" that the
universe exhibits design. In the case of traditional Science, it assumes
reductionism as sufficient because of the previous utility value
demonstrated by said reductionism.


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



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

You are being paranoid. They are not trying to "regain power". To the
extent that ID has specific religious adherents, they are primarily in
the domain of Protestant Christianity which has no single church
hierarchy or power system. (Behe as a Roman Catholic appears as a
Scientist, but he is not sponsored by the RC church in yet another power
grabbing exercise.) The vast majority of people in the ID camp - as far
as I can tell - are in it as a way to harmonize Science with their
religious beliefs in a manner they believe to be honorable to both
disciplines. Notice that I am NOT saying that ID itself is that
harmonization (it isn't) rather that the people involved in supporting
ID see it as a component in finding that harmony. You may disagree with
them, but assuming power as their motive is largely specious.



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

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

Because it is paranoia unfounded in Reality. As a practical matter,
the exposure of ID in the educational world would have no significant
effect on the practice of Science. To the extent that ID makes
claims of Science they could be treated like any other Scientific
claim. To the extent that it is philosophy, it could be debated
as such. The turf protection currently demonstrated by the science
establishment (and don't give me the "we have no high priests" crap -
as a sociological/funding matter, Science absolutely has a pecking order)
is just bizarre and without any real merit. There is no "backsliding"
(a religious term if I ever heard one). There is a stubborn refusal
to consider the foundations of Science and open the dicussion to
other possibilities.




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

Steve Peterson wrote:

Science has no high priests. I already covered this: no Pope, no bishops,
either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this statement doesn't

It's time to put this foolish claim to bed. Science has no hierarchy
of *knowledge* but it absolutely has a social/funding hierarchy; an
"establishment" (aka High Priests) that decides what gets published,
what doesn't, and who get's funded. Every Ph.D. candidate has witnessed
it. The Science Establishment is not some cabal or planned collusion,
but a lose federation of people who share the view that Science is
the epitome of human knowledge and that any attempt to question its
methods or assumptions is a kind of secular "heresy". You can deny this
all you like, but it exists and is easily visible upon casual observation.
This is not, BTW, a power structure that is innate to Science, but a
reflection of the fact that Science is done by people. Science may be
more-or-less objective, but people are not, and that's how we get
the High Priests of Science.

offend me at all, and it will fit very nicely into a philosophy course,
maybe into philosophy of science. In those courses, it can be talked to
death, as it (apparently) is in this news group. It does also state, quite
clearly, that it is not science although it discusses meta-science. It is
about science, a philosophical approach.

What it doesn't do is teach us how to recognize anything in evolution data
or theory that cannot be explained by natural science and therefore must be
due to the influence of an intelligent designer. What are such criteria?

The problem is that we cannot have the conversation you want to have until
you concede that the first conversation has to be about how we know what
we know. If we accept todays Scientific presumptions about he efficacy of
reductionist materialism, then there is no need to further discuss
the innate boundaries of evolutionary theory. The question is begged:
Reductionism is assumed in the premise and claimed in the conclusion.
The *real* question - that you want to so arttfuly dodge - is about the
sufficiency of your assumptions. That is, is materialist reductionism
in fact a good and sufficient basis for knowing everything that can be
known by means of Science. But you dodge that question vigorously.
In effect, you are saying "Show me the limits of my system without
questioning its premises," when the claimed limits of your system
are *innately* its premises. You cannot have it both ways. You can
either open up that conversation, or extend your first proposition
of Science (unprovably) to say: "Materialist Reductionism is both neccessary
*and* sufficient for Science to know what it can know." But, if you
do this, then stop criticizing the IDers who have a very different
first proposition they wish to bring to the philosophy of *science*.
And, BTW, their first proposition in that scenario is no more absurd
than your own.

The mere fact that we don't currently know the natural explanation for
something does not prove that we can't learn the natural explanation. No

But neither can you claim that their *will* be a natural explanation.
You have no more basis for that assumption than do the IDers for theirs.

one claims the theory of evolution is all wrapped up with nothing left to
learn. Neither is gravity, or continental drift, or nucleogenesis, or stem
cells, or superstring theory or .... In your philosophy class you can also
discuss the nature of scientific theories, what is provable and what is not
provable, as well as religious infallibility. Be sure to discuss which
religion is infallible. Since different religions, by definition, have
different credos, tenets, rites, doctrines, ..., only one can be absolutely
correct and infallible and the others must fall short of perfection. Man,
you will have such a great time!

You keep trying to conflate ID with religion, I guess to give you
a rhetorical anchor for intitating guilt-by-association. But ID
proper is *not* overtly religious, nor does it affirm any particular
religious tradition as a movement. Certainly its adherents are often
of particular religious bents, but that is irrelevant to the discussion
at hand. Your rhetoric here smack of an attack on the speakers not
the ideas.

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

Tim Daneliuk writes:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level.


I wouldn't say that. You claim Science makes the assumption there is
no purpose. You might as well claim that all scientists are atheists.
Both assumptions are wrong.

Science purposely AVOIDS making assumptions. Instead, it looks for
evidence of truth. Those that make assumptions can distort the
interpretation of facts. Look at all of the experiments that "prove"
ESP exists.

Now - YOU tell us, why on earth this is so doggone offensive to the
high priests of Science defending their educational turf?

No no no no!
It's not offensive to BELIEVE these things.

It's offensive to those who UNDERSTAND the science to have people use
pseudo-science to prove things which there is no proof.

I'm trying to think of an analogy. You are a computer scientist, and
the best analogy I have is a medical doctor:

Suppose someone published "scientific proof" that voodoo and
witchcraft was able to cure diseases, and suggested that "witch
doctors" should be consulted before medical doctors. Suppose they also
claimed that "faith healing" make things worse.

Medical doctors would be offended by this distortion of facts.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Tim Daneliuk writes:

Steve Peterson wrote:

Science has no high priests. I already covered this: no Pope, no
bishops, either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this
statement doesn't

It's time to put this foolish claim to bed. Science has no hierarchy
of *knowledge* but it absolutely has a social/funding hierarchy; an
"establishment" (aka High Priests) that decides what gets published,
what doesn't,

That's nonsense.

and who get's funded.

That I agree with. Funding is limited.

But science can be published ANYWHERE. Put the friggin' paper on the web.
Print your own book. Let the public see it. Let the public comment.

It might be true that getting a paper in a particular journal requires
special efforts, new ideas, and accurate facts. But you can't blame an
establishment for preventing FACTS from being published. Facts and
truth can't be hidden forever. Nonconventional ideas may take years
or decades to gain acceptance. But no peer system can prevent science
from making progress.

Look at Behe - who by being published proves you are wrong.

Blaiming some peer group for not publishing Behe is just closing your
eyes to the truth - that Behe is making ASSUMPTIONS and then
DISTORTING FACTS in an effort to appear to be scientific, and convince
those that aren't scientists to accept his version of the "truth."



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:


So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher
should use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other
scientific theory, has met an impasse, and cannot advance without
invoking an intelligent designer?



My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.


You're really good at evading the question, aren't you?

We're still waiting for your answer - although without much hope of
getting one.


We've discussed a few many times now. I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
....
... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.

No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design
but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion) and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:


So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher
should use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other
scientific theory, has met an impasse, and cannot advance without
invoking an intelligent designer?




My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.


You're really good at evading the question, aren't you?


Oh, he's not good at evading at all, simply ignores what he doesn't like
to hear--as do all others of his ilk I've run into.

That's quite a good example of what shrinks call "projection".
I've answered your questions and said quite clearly how
teachers should address what science cannot determine
about origins and/or life. I'll let any reader that's still interested
see who the liar is.

Steve Peterson wrote:
Science has no high priests. I already covered this:

That doesn't make it go away though. The field of science
does have members in leadership roles and it does have
the loyal followers of their decrees of faith, as we have been
discussing at some length. It's obviously a figurative, not
literal comparison.



no Pope, no bishops,
either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this statement doesn't
offend me at all, and it will fit very nicely into a philosophy course,
maybe into philosophy of science. In those courses, it can be talked to
death, as it (apparently) is in this news group. It does also state, quite
clearly, that it is not science although it discusses meta-science. It is
about science, a philosophical approach.


Which is what actually happens in science, whether you accept it
or not.


What it doesn't do is teach us how to recognize anything in evolution data
or theory that cannot be explained by natural science and therefore must be
due to the influence of an intelligent designer. What are such criteria?
The mere fact that we don't currently know the natural explanation for
something does not prove that we can't learn the natural explanation. No
one claims the theory of evolution is all wrapped up with nothing left to
learn. Neither is gravity, or continental drift, or nucleogenesis, or stem
cells, or superstring theory or .... In your philosophy class you can also
discuss the nature of scientific theories, what is provable and what is not
provable, as well as religious infallibility. Be sure to discuss which
religion is infallible. Since different religions, by definition, have
different credos, tenets, rites, doctrines, ..., only one can be absolutely
correct and infallible and the others must fall short of perfection. Man,
you will have such a great time!


Let's talk about the religion preached by the high priests of materialism
first, since that's more relevant to the misuse of science. Here's a scientist
that refutes Stephen Gould about the findings of the Cambrian Explosion:
The interview is worth reading to anyone who doesn't believe that science
is unfortunantly being misused to promote the dogma of a few.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html

RI: As you became more interested in this and discovered more about it, did you find it
really was an "explosion of life"?

Chien: Yes. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different
groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including
those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more
phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse
cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get
more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedwe have
more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and
we have less and less now.

Bruce Barnett wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:


Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level.



I wouldn't say that. You claim Science makes the assumption there is
no purpose. You might as well claim that all scientists are atheists.
Both assumptions are wrong.


Science doesn't make the claim, just those who would misuse
it to promote their bias.

Science purposely AVOIDS making assumptions. Instead, it looks for
evidence of truth. Those that make assumptions can distort the
interpretation of facts. Look at all of the experiments that "prove"
ESP exists.


The complaint is exactly that. A distortion of the facts in the scientific
community. For example:

http://www.origins.org/articles/woodward_rusestore.html
Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University
of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened
to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to
"refute Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial." (Intervarsity Press, 1991.)
Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that
Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions"
as on scientific evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html
The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does
not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of
Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive
forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by
infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present
varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t.
Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully
complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design


That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.


but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)


I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.


and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process


I've answered that one even more times. It isn't important
which view you favor if you conclude that it wasn't natural.
I'm not the spokesperson for the entire ID movement.


and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.


Again, your question misses the point. The point isn't how the unnatural
can be reconciled with the natural but how the natural can be the cause
for unnatural events.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.

but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.

I'm not so much interested in defending "Darwinian evolution" because
that implies a severe simplification of what we now know. I've never
contended we know everything at the present time, only that to presume
there isn't a natural explanation is to remove the exploration from the
realm of science.

and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process

... It isn't important...

"It isn't important" isn't much of an answer...

and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.

Again, your question misses the point. The point isn't how the unnatural
can be reconciled with the natural but how the natural can be the cause
for unnatural events.

But that is the point. If it is unnatural, then how can one possibly
have any explanation other than "because"? Is that science in your
opinion?

Fletis,

You have continued to argue that science should expand to include
creationism, oops, I mean intelligent design. I think you need to review
the meaning of the word "science" which you can look at he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Again, I cite Wikipedia only because
it is easy to give a link, and it isn't very long and uses simple words.
Here is one paragraph on the goals of science:

" Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to
answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only
those that pertain to physical reality. Also, science cannot possibly
address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer
becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and
unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about
some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it
in light of new observations or data. "

You repeatedly demand the inclusion of pseudoscience, but it doesn't fit.

Steve

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be
evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.

but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on
trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.

You keep invoking the Cambrian Explosion as an example of some unnatural
event. However, there is no reason that evolution could not, or did not,
develop a wide variety of organisms, making up more classes than we now have
after winnowing through competition and selective reproductive success.

I'm not so much interested in defending "Darwinian evolution" because
that implies a severe simplification of what we now know. I've never
contended we know everything at the present time, only that to presume
there isn't a natural explanation is to remove the exploration from the
realm of science.

and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process

... It isn't important...

"It isn't important" isn't much of an answer...

and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.

Again, your question misses the point. The point isn't how the unnatural
can be reconciled with the natural but how the natural can be the cause
for unnatural events.

But that is the point. If it is unnatural, then how can one possibly
have any explanation other than "because"? Is that science in your
opinion?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...



http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

I strongly encourage the interested reader to check out that site.
Personally, I found the sections on

Chistian Theology
Aberrant Theology
and
"Inherit the Wind vs Scope Monkey Trial" (link is on the right margin)

to be especially illuminating.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does
not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of
Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

I'd really like to see a citation for that.


Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive
forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by
infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present
varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't.
Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully
complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time.

First of all, is it your assertion that there are no examples of
transitional fossils in the fossil record?

Secondly, a pointed out beofore, it is a false Dichotomy to conclude
that a failure on the part fo slow mutation and natural selection to
account for a new species is support for ID. The situation you
describe, is well-addressed by macromutation theory, for example.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.

Says who? Below is a quote from a PBS (Horrors - Satan incarnate) website:

"The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short
time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different
body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the
increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing
fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures.
Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian
opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms
exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly
important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests
that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual
evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental
processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an
unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition.
Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without
trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate
the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and
evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the
body plans that already existed."


And there's also the view that many of the early multicelled animals
were softbodied and left little evidence of their existence. The
Burgess Shale is the only site I know of.

And I have trouble calling a change over 30,000,000 years an "explosion".

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...


... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.


but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.


I'm not so much interested in defending "Darwinian evolution" because
that implies a severe simplification of what we now know.

Well now, this is getting interesting. Darwinian Evolution is
evolution in the sense of natural selection and random mutation
as opposed to "micro-evolution", which we all agree on.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Evolution
The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of
evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection.




I've never
contended we know everything at the present time, only that to presume
there isn't a natural explanation is to remove the exploration from the
realm of science.

You've made that false assertion a number of times, I've linked
to scientists that refute it, like Dr. Paul Chien, chairman of the biology
department at the University of San Francisco...
http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html

It seems that you have buried your head in the sand.



and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process

... It isn't important...


"It isn't important" isn't much of an answer...


You snipped the rest on why it isn't important to the question.
I said many times that it would be a matter of personal belief
and isn't relevant to whether a designer could be responsible for
the design.



and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.

Again, your question misses the point. The point isn't how the unnatural
can be reconciled with the natural but how the natural can be the cause
for unnatural events.


But that is the point. If it is unnatural, then how can one possibly
have any explanation other than "because"? Is that science in your
opinion?

It's obviously part of it because the point made quite redundant by
now is that life and the universe has no natural cause. If you have
one please share...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP

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

OK:

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


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

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

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

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



Do you mean this?

Begin Quote

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

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

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

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



ENd quote


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

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


SNIP


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

Rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Because it is paranoia unfounded in Reality. ..

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

--

FF

Steve Peterson wrote:
Fletis,

You have continued to argue that science should expand to include
creationism, oops, I mean intelligent design. I think you need to review
the meaning of the word "science" which you can look at he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Again, I cite Wikipedia only because
it is easy to give a link, and it isn't very long and uses simple words.
Here is one paragraph on the goals of science:

" Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to
answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only
those that pertain to physical reality. Also, science cannot possibly
address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer
becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and
unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about
some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it
in light of new observations or data. "

You repeatedly demand the inclusion of pseudoscience, but it doesn't fit.

Steve


Steve, it's obvious that you can't follow our conversations. I
have addressed issue many times. To recap to any reader:

Pseudo-science is being taught now, I've posted errors
in modern textbooks that exist because it fits an agenda
and isn't science.

You and several others continue to blur the word "science"
with the teaching of science. Science classrooms are not
research centers and a mature scientist may know when he's
being hoodwinked. I say "may", but kids are more vulnerable.

I've said many, many times that ID should only be mentioned
when the subject of origins comes up as a possible alternative
to leaving students with the false assumption that the cause
is natural, we just don't have proof yet. What we do know, like
the Cambrian Explosion, puts it in at least some doubt, otherwise
there would be no controversy within science.

So, no. I have no problem drawing the line between science
and philosophy, I can do both, but young impressionable
minds may have trouble drawing the line between the two
when presented with them as one. ID brings some balance to
the equation. Dismissing it as non-science, misses the point.




"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...


... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be
evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.

but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on
trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.


You keep invoking the Cambrian Explosion as an example of some unnatural
event. However, there is no reason that evolution could not, or did not,
develop a wide variety of organisms, making up more classes than we now have
after winnowing through competition and selective reproductive success.


Then you haven't even bothered to look into it.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...
http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html
...


I just want to thank you for bringing that site to our attention.

--

FF

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.


Says who? Below is a quote from a PBS (Horrors - Satan incarnate) website:

"The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short
time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different
body plans evolve so early and in such profusion?


That right there is inaccurate so their biased showed up right out
of the gate. The life forms appeared fully formed, many of them
quite complex. We have less life forms now than then, which is
at odds with the often displayed evo-tree. To say it evolved that
way defies the theory of evolution itself and didn't give a fair
assessment to the controversy within the community itself.


Some point to the
increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing
fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures.


Unfortunantly the geological evidence has done away with that one.
PBS did some sloppy research. What a surprise.



Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian
opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms
exploited.


I've seen that one too. That too defies Darwinian Evolution. We
are now suggesting that DNA somehow senses opportunity
and makes the best of it while the going is good.


External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly
important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.


How so?

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ec...sil_record.htm
Understanding both the onset and the termination of such bursts is a
major challenge. Critical tests for the trigger or damper of the Cambrian
explosion have been difficult. Potential mechanisms are plentiful and fall
roughly into an extrinsic set of ecological or physical triggers and brakes
and an intrinsic set of thresholds in the increasing complexity and later
stabilization of developmental systems. However, without a time machine
to perform reciprocal transplant experiments between Cambrian and
modern seas, the rival hypotheses so far have resisted falsification; clearly,
broadly multidisciplinary work is essential to crack this problem.



Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests
that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual
evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental
processes.


I'm not a biologist, I don't think you are either, but doesn't that
sound a bit like groping to you? Research suggesting a genetic
tool kit? Did they even bother sourcing that one?


Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an
unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition.

Wow. Them genes is smart.


Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without
trace.


Except for the fossils, of course. Did they mean abrupt ending?
How rude, you'd think they would have the decency to die off
gradually like any self respecting creature.

Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate
the biosphere,


Wait...could that explain the sudden disappearances? Hmmm,
I think they may be onto something.


evolution never had such a free hand again, and
evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the
body plans that already existed."


In other words the fossil record disproves the evo-tree we've
all been subjected to. We have less life forms now, they didn't
keep evolving into ever increasing phyla.


And there's also the view that many of the early multicelled animals
were softbodied and left little evidence of their existence. The
Burgess Shale is the only site I know of.


Good news, there's a better one at Chengjiang, China.
http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html


And I have trouble calling a change over 30,000,000 years an "explosion".

That's easy for you to say.

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...



http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html


I strongly encourage the interested reader to check out that site.
Personally, I found the sections on

Chistian Theology
Aberrant Theology
and
"Inherit the Wind vs Scope Monkey Trial" (link is on the right margin)

to be especially illuminating.


Meaning what? You can't refute the information ?


The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does
not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of
Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."


I'd really like to see a citation for that.


I've seen it many times. Why can't you search for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster
Stephen J. Gould made reference to the Hopeful Monster theory in
proposing his alternative theory of punctuated equilibrium. In an article
in Natural History, Gould noted: "the extreme rarity of transitional forms
in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontolog


Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive
forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by
infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present
varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't.
Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully
complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time.


First of all, is it your assertion that there are no examples of
transitional fossils in the fossil record?

What happened to the link? Those were his words but I agree
with him from what I have seen.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html


Secondly, a pointed out beofore, it is a false Dichotomy to conclude
that a failure on the part fo slow mutation and natural selection to
account for a new species is support for ID.


I think it makes ID look better. What's your alternative explanation?


The situation you
describe, is well-addressed by macromutation theory, for example.

Well addressed ....as in supported by evidence?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

....
....The life forms appeared fully formed, many of them
quite complex. ...

How the h do you know that?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

...

Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an
unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition.

Wow. Them genes is smart.



A classic example of projection.

"Them genes is smart." is ID.

It is particularly telling that, since you didn't understand what
Mr Blanchard wrote, you called upon an Intelligent Designer,
e.g. "smart genes' for an alternative. Of course you were only
joking...

--

FF

wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

...

Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an
unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition.

Wow. Them genes is smart.



A classic example of projection.

"Them genes is smart." is ID.

It is particularly telling that, since you didn't understand what
Mr Blanchard wrote, you called upon an Intelligent Designer,
e.g. "smart genes' for an alternative. Of course you were only
joking...

Might be useful reading of some of Mandelbrot in _Fractal Geometry of
Nature_ who demonstrates how very simple iterative rules can create very
complex structures which have remarkable resemblance to natural
processes from the observed distribution of the galaxies to biotic
systems.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...



http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html


I strongly encourage the interested reader to check out that site.
Personally, I found the sections on

Chistian Theology
Aberrant Theology
and
"Inherit the Wind vs Scope Monkey Trial" (link is on the right margin)

to be especially illuminating.


Meaning what? You can't refute the information ?

Meaning I found those links to be especially illuminating.

IMHO, theology by its very nature, is irrefutable.

The third link leaves me wanting to read the _Scopes_ transcript
and the textbook in question, as well as more about William Jennings
Bryant and his role in the Populist movement.



The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does
not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of
Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."


I'd really like to see a citation for that.


I've seen it many times. Why can't you search for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster
Stephen J. Gould made reference to the Hopeful Monster theory in
proposing his alternative theory of punctuated equilibrium. In an article
in Natural History, Gould noted: "the extreme rarity of transitional forms
in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontolog


I remember reading his _Natural History_ June/July 1977 column, but
do not remember the one from May of that year. Thanks.


Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive
forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by
infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present
varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't.
Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully
complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time.


First of all, is it your assertion that there are no examples of
transitional fossils in the fossil record?

What happened to the link? Those were his words but I agree
with him from what I have seen.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html


There is no mention of transitional species, or the absence thereof,
at that link.

At the previous link, Dr Gould is quoted as saying that transitional
spieces are rare, you claimed "the fossil record should show these
gradual changes. But it doesn't." That is a blanket denial of
the observation of _any_ transitional species. Hence my request
for clarification promting your nonclarification.

Again, is it your assertion that there are no examples of
transitional fossils in the fossil record?


Secondly, a pointed out beofore, it is a false Dichotomy to conclude
that a failure on the part fo slow mutation and natural selection to
account for a new species is support for ID.


I think it makes ID look better. What's your alternative explanation?


I stated _one_ for you. You left it in your reply, thus sparing me
the need for repeating it. See below.


The situation you
describe, is well-addressed by macromutation theory, for example.

Well addressed ....as in supported by evidence?

I refer you to Dr Gould's June/July 1977 Natural History column.

Do you have any evidence to support ID?

--

FF