| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:06:37 -0700, lgb wrote:
In article , says... Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, drinking is the least of his problems. ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes") Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try. I will let the absurdity of your attempt to divorce the asserted random, non-causal origin of the universe from the asserted non-causal random origin of life stand on its own. And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called "intelligent design". Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group. Or writing letters to the editor :-). +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:06:37 -0700, lgb wrote: In article , says... Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, drinking is the least of his problems. ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes") Which could mean almost anything but appears on its face to simply be insensible Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try. Well, maybe you understand what he or she was trying to say. I will let the absurdity of your attempt to divorce the asserted random, non-causal origin of the universe from the asserted non-causal random origin of life stand on its own. Maybe you think that your vague circumspection is clever. But I'll be damned if I can see what it has to do with George W Bush drinking. -- FF |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
lgb wrote: In article , says... What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design created in his own image started when we all began to sin. Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a minute stop and think about this. There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.. Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of having picked the right one is, at best, 5%. ... Want to hedge your bets? Become a Buddist. Buddism doesn't require that you give up other religions. About thirty years ago I read that 90% of japanese were Shinto and 80% were Buddist. (Doug Miller may want to check on those figures...) -- FF |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott wrote: "Leon" wrote in message . .. ... If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. .... You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. So, who do you think will be the Republic candidate for President in 2008? Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. Biden looks promising. But let's keep in mind that in 1998, pretty much nobody had heard of GW Bush outside of Texas, in 1990 pretty much nobody outside of Arkansas had heard of BJ Clinton, in 1974 pretty much nobody outside of Georgia had heard of Jimmy Carter. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. There sure as hell isn't a long list of Republic politicians with class either. The only one I can think of is McCain and unless Pat Robertson dies real soon now McCain won't get enough support from the Republics to beat Dennis Kucinich (whom I would much rather have as President than Bush, sober or not). -- FF |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
lgb wrote: ... P.S. Any time you'd like to jar your intelligent design belief, get a good book on the Burgess shale fossils :-). A sobering view, is that? -- FF |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charlie Self wrote:
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. (In the material below, I am not particularly arguing that Intelligent Design is correct - I don't know it well enough to have a clear position on the matter. What I *am* arguing is that dismissing ID as "anti-Scientific" is both naive and reflects a lack of understanding of both the limits to what Science can ever know, and even moreso, a misunderstanding of what ID claims. This is based on some cursory reading of the IDer stuff and may well be wrong or dated in some areas. But as a general matter, I think my overall impression of ID is correct.) But First, A Thought Experiment ------------------------------- 1) Assume that our senses and minds are reasonably reliable - that the science we know today is more-or-less correct but subject to improvement. More succinctly: We can know thing about our Universe. 2) Because of 1) we can observe two important things: a) The Universe is bounded (in size, volume, content ...) The total energy and matter in the universe is fixed - merely being exchanged one for another - thank you Albert Einstein. b) The Universe had a beginning (aka The Big Bang) i.e., The Universe exists in a *finite* form. It is neither unbounded in size nor unbounded in duration, nor unbounded in mass, nor unbounded in energy. 3) Handwaving Philosophy Mode a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone) brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such phenomena. That is, the (finite) matter and energy that populated the Universe at the time of its birth did not just magically appear. If you don't buy this premise, then the burden (philosophically) lies upon you to demonstrate how something is produced spontaneously from nothing. Well ... maybe not "demonstrate", but at least suggest some reasonable model for how Something From Nothing might work. Every single evidence we have today strongly argues that Something always comes from Somewhere, not from some magical puff of smoke. b) Assume that the something/someone that made our Universe come into existence it itself bounded somehow, but it merely lives outside or above the physics that govern *our* Universe. Now apply the observation 3a) to that thing/person that made our Universe spring into being. That is, the fact that there is a thing/person that made our Universe come to be, suggests that it itself has a thing/person that made *it* come to be. 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. ii) The Universe itself transcends time, space, and all the rest. This is refuted pretty thoroughly by all contemporary physics and cosmology. iii) Nothing actually exists at all, it's all an illusion. /Handwaving Philosophy Mode The central fallacy of those who would juxtapose Intelligent Design and Science is that they attempt to address rather different questions. Yes, the ID people are trying to "inflitrate" the world of Science, but that's because they believe they have a Scientific case to make - read on. Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only address questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have occured since the beginning of the Universe. Intelligent Design and other "authorship" theories attempt to grapple with the questions of *from where*, *by whom* (if any), and, possibly, *why*. As the handwaving logical induction above suggests, these are not questions that science will *ever* be competent to answer, *but there is an inductive suggestion as to what an answer would look like - at least qualitatively*. One can take several positions here. You might say, "How, From Where, and Why are unimportant questions and thus not worthy of further examination." But a lot of us, who are both trained in mathematics, the sciences, and are otherwise thoughtful, rational people think these questions are incredibly important and interesting. More to the point, we're not satisfied with the limitations of what we can know through Science alone. Even more to the point, the IDers have an intriguing suggestion - that Science itself is broken at the moment. At its core, Intelligent Design is a *philosophical* critique of the theory of knowledge that is deeply embedded in today's scientific orthodoxy. More specifically, ID argues that the reductionist models of contemporary Science are inadequate to *fully* account for what we observe. They are not saying that Science is inferior to Faith (I don't think, even though many IDers probably believe this). They are not saying that all current Science is wrong. They are not suggesting we discard Science as a means of understanding our Universe. They are saying that Science, in its current incarnation, has an inadequate system of knowledge to fully explain what we observe. (By "fully explain", I mean "in principle", whether or not we ever actually get around to doing so.) More specifically, they are saying that a core modeling *method* of Science (reductionism) is the point of inadequacy. Sidenote: This is hardly a new thing in the world of Science. Every major breakthrough in Science has had the property of decimating some Scientific sacred cow that preceded it. Claiming (and demonstrating) you have a better model is not "anti-Scientific", is is the essence of how Science progresses. In order to make this claim, ID proponents are offering what they believe to be *Scientific* (not religious, not philosophical) arguments as to why today's Scientific theory of knowlege is broken. (I note that they also do have religious and philosophical arguments, but that's not primarily where they've engaged the debate so far.) Now, these Scientific claims of the IDers might be right, wrong, or not yet testable. But, here's where it gets interesting: If the ID people are bozos, and their "Science" is bogus, then why doesn't the mainstream Science community offer them a chance to make their case in peer reviewed journals and refute them trivially? (This mostly has not happened AFAIK.) What we see instead are ad hominem attacks on the IDers as they are dimissed as "religious nuts", "mystics", and all the rest. In other words, if it's so dumb, it should be trivial to decimate in open court. The reason for this, of course, is that Science itself has an Establishment that resists change. The idea that there *might* be a hole in the boat of the theory of knowledge that drives Science is terrifying to an awful lot of mainstream scientists - at least that's what it looks like to me. Otherwise, they'd be happy to engage the IDers, disprove their claims, and merrily go on their way. There's no question that the majority of IDers are people of deep religious faith. But this, in and of itself, is not grounds to dismiss their claims of *Science*. (Bear in mind, that a good many of the leading lights of ID are legitimate Scientists in their own right.) They are arguing that today's reductionist models are not good enough to discover everything we can know about the Universe. Why not let them try and make the case. In any case, whether the IDers are right or wrong, one thing is clear. Go back and work your way through the thought experiment I described. If you think about it a while, I believe you'll be led to the same conclusion I've come to: If anything actually exists, it had to have a starting point that is not governed by time, space, or any of the physics known to us. Is it so utterly unreasonable to suggest that such a starting point is itself ... "intelligent"? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robatoy wrote: In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote: Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's will. ...and I'm not arrogant enough to question anyone's faith. I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message news  Tim Daneliuk (in ) said: | Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only | address | questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have | occured since the beginning of the Universe. No need to look back to the beginning of the Universe, talk to a pregnant woman, take a look at how foetus develops, get a video of labor and delivery and then we can really talk about Intelligent Design. You should find a better group for this discussion. And for goodness sake, read up on what science is and what science is not before you join another group. Josie |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Morris Dovey
wrote: As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which has been observed and that which has not. Have you been ttouched by his noodly appendage? http://www.venganza.org/ Pirates are cool! -- Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.com... I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions. Agreed, that is why I replied on the comment, The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Intelligent design does refer to there being an intelligent creator, most relate this to religion or faith, vs. the other theory where every thing evolved by chance from a rock. I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not supportive of intelligent design. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Balderstone (in
. ca) said: | Have you been ttouched by his noodly appendage? | http://www.venganza.org/ | | Pirates are cool! I generally avoid others' noodly appendages. And here I'd thought everything was up-to-date in Kansas City (They've gone about as f'r as they can go!) Pirates are probably under-appreciated on the Great Plains. Now if Windwagon Smith were to hoist the jolly roger... -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions. read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as "teach the controversy." Steven Peterson, Ph.D. Steve #564 on the Steve's List "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Charlie Self wrote: The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. (In the material below, I am not particularly arguing that Intelligent Design is correct - I don't know it well enough to have a clear position on the matter. What I *am* arguing is that dismissing ID as "anti-Scientific" is both naive and reflects a lack of understanding of both the limits to what Science can ever know, and even moreso, a misunderstanding of what ID claims. This is based on some cursory reading of the IDer stuff and may well be wrong or dated in some areas. But as a general matter, I think my overall impression of ID is correct.) But First, A Thought Experiment ------------------------------- 1) Assume that our senses and minds are reasonably reliable - that the science we know today is more-or-less correct but subject to improvement. More succinctly: We can know thing about our Universe. 2) Because of 1) we can observe two important things: a) The Universe is bounded (in size, volume, content ...) The total energy and matter in the universe is fixed - merely being exchanged one for another - thank you Albert Einstein. b) The Universe had a beginning (aka The Big Bang) i.e., The Universe exists in a *finite* form. It is neither unbounded in size nor unbounded in duration, nor unbounded in mass, nor unbounded in energy. 3) Handwaving Philosophy Mode a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone) brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such phenomena. That is, the (finite) matter and energy that populated the Universe at the time of its birth did not just magically appear. If you don't buy this premise, then the burden (philosophically) lies upon you to demonstrate how something is produced spontaneously from nothing. Well ... maybe not "demonstrate", but at least suggest some reasonable model for how Something From Nothing might work. Every single evidence we have today strongly argues that Something always comes from Somewhere, not from some magical puff of smoke. b) Assume that the something/someone that made our Universe come into existence it itself bounded somehow, but it merely lives outside or above the physics that govern *our* Universe. Now apply the observation 3a) to that thing/person that made our Universe spring into being. That is, the fact that there is a thing/person that made our Universe come to be, suggests that it itself has a thing/person that made *it* come to be. 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. ii) The Universe itself transcends time, space, and all the rest. This is refuted pretty thoroughly by all contemporary physics and cosmology. iii) Nothing actually exists at all, it's all an illusion. /Handwaving Philosophy Mode The central fallacy of those who would juxtapose Intelligent Design and Science is that they attempt to address rather different questions. Yes, the ID people are trying to "inflitrate" the world of Science, but that's because they believe they have a Scientific case to make - read on. Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only address questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have occured since the beginning of the Universe. Intelligent Design and other "authorship" theories attempt to grapple with the questions of *from where*, *by whom* (if any), and, possibly, *why*. As the handwaving logical induction above suggests, these are not questions that science will *ever* be competent to answer, *but there is an inductive suggestion as to what an answer would look like - at least qualitatively*. One can take several positions here. You might say, "How, From Where, and Why are unimportant questions and thus not worthy of further examination." But a lot of us, who are both trained in mathematics, the sciences, and are otherwise thoughtful, rational people think these questions are incredibly important and interesting. More to the point, we're not satisfied with the limitations of what we can know through Science alone. Even more to the point, the IDers have an intriguing suggestion - that Science itself is broken at the moment. At its core, Intelligent Design is a *philosophical* critique of the theory of knowledge that is deeply embedded in today's scientific orthodoxy. More specifically, ID argues that the reductionist models of contemporary Science are inadequate to *fully* account for what we observe. They are not saying that Science is inferior to Faith (I don't think, even though many IDers probably believe this). They are not saying that all current Science is wrong. They are not suggesting we discard Science as a means of understanding our Universe. They are saying that Science, in its current incarnation, has an inadequate system of knowledge to fully explain what we observe. (By "fully explain", I mean "in principle", whether or not we ever actually get around to doing so.) More specifically, they are saying that a core modeling *method* of Science (reductionism) is the point of inadequacy. Sidenote: This is hardly a new thing in the world of Science. Every major breakthrough in Science has had the property of decimating some Scientific sacred cow that preceded it. Claiming (and demonstrating) you have a better model is not "anti-Scientific", is is the essence of how Science progresses. In order to make this claim, ID proponents are offering what they believe to be *Scientific* (not religious, not philosophical) arguments as to why today's Scientific theory of knowlege is broken. (I note that they also do have religious and philosophical arguments, but that's not primarily where they've engaged the debate so far.) Now, these Scientific claims of the IDers might be right, wrong, or not yet testable. But, here's where it gets interesting: If the ID people are bozos, and their "Science" is bogus, then why doesn't the mainstream Science community offer them a chance to make their case in peer reviewed journals and refute them trivially? (This mostly has not happened AFAIK.) What we see instead are ad hominem attacks on the IDers as they are dimissed as "religious nuts", "mystics", and all the rest. In other words, if it's so dumb, it should be trivial to decimate in open court. The reason for this, of course, is that Science itself has an Establishment that resists change. The idea that there *might* be a hole in the boat of the theory of knowledge that drives Science is terrifying to an awful lot of mainstream scientists - at least that's what it looks like to me. Otherwise, they'd be happy to engage the IDers, disprove their claims, and merrily go on their way. There's no question that the majority of IDers are people of deep religious faith. But this, in and of itself, is not grounds to dismiss their claims of *Science*. (Bear in mind, that a good many of the leading lights of ID are legitimate Scientists in their own right.) They are arguing that today's reductionist models are not good enough to discover everything we can know about the Universe. Why not let them try and make the case. In any case, whether the IDers are right or wrong, one thing is clear. Go back and work your way through the thought experiment I described. If you think about it a while, I believe you'll be led to the same conclusion I've come to: If anything actually exists, it had to have a starting point that is not governed by time, space, or any of the physics known to us. Is it so utterly unreasonable to suggest that such a starting point is itself ... "intelligent"? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leon wrote: I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not supportive of intelligent design. You got it in one. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charlie Self" wrote in message ups.com... Leon wrote: I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not supportive of intelligent design. You got it in one. Changing the subject.. LOL Are you still working on or thinking about doing a Bird House Book. I am really looking forward to it. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's because Buddhism is not a religion. Never has been and never will be
unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth. John Emmons wrote in message oups.com... lgb wrote: In article , says... What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design created in his own image started when we all began to sin. Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a minute stop and think about this. There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.. Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of having picked the right one is, at best, 5%. ... Want to hedge your bets? Become a Buddist. Buddism doesn't require that you give up other religions. About thirty years ago I read that 90% of japanese were Shinto and 80% were Buddist. (Doug Miller may want to check on those figures...) -- FF |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Emmons" wrote in message ... That's because Buddhism is not a religion. Never has been and never will be unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth. John Emmons Exactly... the Pope is simply another elected official. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
hello,
3) Handwaving Philosophy Mode a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone) brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such phenomena. Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why I say the only rational answer is "I don't know." Actually, this is not true, particles/antiparticles pairs pop out in existance out of nothing all the time. Granted, they tend to re-anhihilate one another straight away (except when they apear on the boundary of a black hole event horizon, stephen haukins (sp)), but this is a well kown example of stuff being created out of nothing... personally, I find it easier to think about atomes being created out of nothing than a god, buth then.... cyrille |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Morris Dovey" wrote: Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive nowhere :- You are not stringing us along now are you? How about..mmm lemme see... one dimension (time) and..ohhh, what-the-heck nine more dimensions? You know, something an average p-brane would understand? WAIT!! I have said too much! Why do some people find it difficult to understand that if a 'who' designed the whole universe in 7 days, that same 'who' couldn't have tossed in a few billion-year-plus old rocks just for fun? I find the face of an ostrich hilarious enough to think that some sense of humour is at play here. Those seashell fossils on Mt Everest are a nice touch as well. I got it.. smack some tectonic plates together on Tuesday, sweep-up and cover with snow on Wednesday. I think the creationist and evolutionary views coexist nicely. One just has to loosen up the parameters a little i.e. a day = 24000 hours? Maybe more? Sorry if it doesn't fit the rigid interpretations of really old transcripts all covered in monk-drool. The biggest problem we have is that we're trying to understand things without the required tools to do so. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Robatoy wrote: The biggest problem we have is that we're trying to understand things without the required tools to do so. There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, HHGTTG djb -- Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Emmons wrote: That's because Buddhism is not a religion... I daresay that is highly subjective. People who are in precise agreement as to what constitutes Buddism may readily disagree on whether or not it is a religion depending on how they they define 'religion'. -- FF |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design" might be discussed in science classes. The old adage, never argue religion or politics with a friend is true. And never mix religion and politics is also true. "By their deeds so shall you know them." wasn't talking about religious zealots, Muslim or Christian. If you encounter a good, decent, caring, content person living a life worth emulating - so shall you know them - and maybe even try and be like them. charlie b now if only we'd apply "what you do to the least of mine, you do to me" more often |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
lgb wrote:
3) Handwaving Philosophy Mode a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone) brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such phenomena. Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why I say the only rational answer is "I don't know." Just a fine point: There is no "proof" in Science either. Science at best can only propose more and more likely explanations for observed phenomena. "Proof" is an idea pretty much limited to formal mathematical logic, and then only because of the way axiom-based systems work. At the end of the day, the acquistion of knowledge - by whatever means - is governed by what you *assume a priori* to be a valid starting point. That is, the axioms (presuppositions) upon which your system of knowledge are built are never "proovable". In strictly philosophical terms, there is no a prioi reason to prefer empiricism over navel gazing as a source of knowledge - though there are certainly utilitarian arguments to be made here. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jois wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message news
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said: | Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only | address | questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have | occured since the beginning of the Universe. No need to look back to the beginning of the Universe, talk to a pregnant woman, take a look at how foetus develops, get a video of labor and delivery and then we can really talk about Intelligent Design. You should find a better group for this discussion. And for goodness sake, read up on what science is and what science is not before you join another group. Josie I am well aware of the methods, claims, and philosophy of science. No need to condescend. Your tone is emblematic of the baked in arrogance of today's Science Establishment. Anyone who questions your orthodoxy is sneered upon. From Tycho Brache onward, there have always been the "wise men" of each generation to refused to accept the possibility they were wrong about something. It took singularities of thought from Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and all the rest to kick Science to the next level. I have no problem with the current state of Scientific theory - it coexists nicely with- or without Intelligent Creation. I do have a problem with the *religious* fervor some in the Science community exhibit when protecting their turf. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said: | Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only | address | questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have | occured since the beginning of the Universe. Hmm. You might want to think about this some more. "Perfect" science can only deal with observations about things that have occurred during the course of the observations. Any conclusions about unobserved prior, unobserved concurrent, or subsequent events are at most hypotheses. You miss my point. Even if a "perfect" Science existed, it would be (as far was we now know) blind to anything before the birth of the Universe. Moreover, *all* Science is hypothesis - some more likely/testable than others. There is ultimately no "proof" in Science at all. As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's Uh, no .... Cosmologists draw inferences all the time about events that they could not possibly observe - and make claims about said events. This is consistent with the rules by which Science operates. It is "faith" only in the sense that *all* knowledge systems - Scientific or not - operate from some set of unprovable starting points. permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which has been observed and that which has not. -- Morris Dovey Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive nowhere :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robatoy wrote:
In article , "Morris Dovey" wrote: Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive nowhere :- You are not stringing us along now are you? How about..mmm lemme see... one dimension (time) and..ohhh, what-the-heck nine more dimensions? You know, something an average p-brane would understand? WAIT!! I have said too much! Why do some people find it difficult to understand that if a 'who' designed the whole universe in 7 days, that same 'who' couldn't have tossed in a few billion-year-plus old rocks just for fun? I find the face of an ostrich hilarious enough to think that some sense of humour is at play here. Those seashell fossils on Mt Everest are a nice touch as well. I got it.. smack some tectonic plates together on Tuesday, sweep-up and cover with snow on Wednesday. I think the creationist and evolutionary views coexist nicely. One just has to loosen up the parameters a little i.e. a day = 24000 hours? Maybe more? Sorry if it doesn't fit the rigid interpretations of really old transcripts all covered in monk-drool. The biggest problem we have is that we're trying to understand things without the required tools to do so. Bear in mind that there is a difference between someone who affirms intelligent creation and someone who insists on a literal reading of the Genesis account. You can be the former and not insist on the latter. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Peterson wrote:
See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/ for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal reading of the Genesis account. public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions. Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far, most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods or claims. read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as "teach the controversy." Steven Peterson, Ph.D. Steve #564 on the Steve's List ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leon wrote: "John Emmons" wrote in message ... That's because Buddhism is not a religion. Never has been and never will be unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth. John Emmons Exactly... the Pope is simply another elected official. Although he is elected by people who were appointed by previous Popes. -- FF |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ... Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory. IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to certain specializations in particular fields. To accept a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking newsgroup. It would be off-topic. Accepting of-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative atmosphere. You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to Off-Topic threads? When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a podium so much as they are disgusted. -- FF |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
charlie b wrote:
If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design" might be discussed in science classes. It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ... at least the ones who taught me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leon wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.com... I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions. Agreed, that is why I replied on the comment, The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Intelligent design does refer to there being an intelligent creator, most relate this to religion or faith, vs. the other theory where every thing evolved by chance from a rock. This is not exactly right. *Some* Intelligent Design theories are proposed as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory. There are however other "intelligent design" theories (aka "authorship theories") that posit the existence of an intelligent creator that operated *by means of evolution*. You have to be careful to separate the discussion of "Who/What Made It Come To Be?" (Who) from "What Are The Mechanisms By Which Things Came To Be?" (How). I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not supportive of intelligent design. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
charlie b wrote: If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design" might be discussed in science classes. It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ... at least the ones who taught me. I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right? One of the arguements the ID folks present is "this organism is extremely complex, too complex to merely just happen by accident. therefore it had to be designed by some intelligent entity". They overlook the billions of years of trial and error that went into how that complexity developed. If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't be a need for multiple iterations of a design to meet a specific environment/set of conditions. But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we (males) still don't have hair that'll last a lifetime  , at least not me.charlie b |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
charlie b wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote: charlie b wrote: If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design" might be discussed in science classes. It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ... at least the ones who taught me. I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right? No. I am not Catholic nor do I have much patience for the RC church on lots of different levels (social, philosophical, political ...) One of the arguements the ID folks present is "this organism is extremely complex, too complex to merely just happen by accident. therefore it had to be designed by some intelligent entity". That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they have a Scientific case to make to support that conclusion. We may well never know, because the Science Establishment today it putting huge resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor) to avoid having this debate. They overlook the billions of years of trial and error that went into how that complexity developed. If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't be a need for multiple iterations of a design to meet a specific environment/set of conditions. You don't know that. It is entirely possible that an intelligent designer incorporated evolutionary processes into the development of the Universe. It is possible that multiple iterations were "created" to make the resulting system "adaptive" so that best design wins - a sort of genetic algorithm approach. Even more importantly, there is still some fair debate to be had about just how many "iterations" there really were. Evolutionary theory is still open to a lot of interesting criticism even without ID or authorship ideas. That is, criticism within the framework of today's Science. For example, evolution *within* a particular species, over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not demonstrated by direct experiment. If they were, the discussion about Evolution would truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment has to do to shut up the IDers is to show (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say, Ted Kennedy. But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we (males) still don't have hair that'll last a lifetime , at least not me.That's because we modern humans have the bad manners to live long beyond the duration needed to reproduce. A truly counter-evolutionary behavior. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ... Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory. IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to certain specializations in particular fields. To accept a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking newsgroup. It would be off-topic. This argument is a red-herring. No, it is spot on. Science has a philosophy of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned. It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively). The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then refuted or not. "Intelligent Design" unless it is very ill-considered misnomer, relies on the presumption of a divine being. That is the realm of religion, not science. A claim to be able to demonstrate intelligent design scientifically, without theology is obvious double speak. Accepting off-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative atmosphere. The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within their respective disciplines. Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of their specific sub-branches of science? I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it. Science has always observed aboundant phenomena that COULD be explained by invoking some sort of intelligence making a choice, for example between which molecules pass thorugh a membrane and which do not. You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to Off-Topic threads? You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and competence of one group of scientists by another. Which has nothing to do with patio furniture. There is a whole lot of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see them treating the IDers. Which was my point. Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly for their Scientific claims. Like everyone else they have a right to express their opinions. Also, like everyone else, they have no right to demand that anyone in particular listen to them. If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that is the right of those publishers or sponsors. The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any damn thing at all for them. No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play. When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a podium so much as they are disgusted. Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of outright rejection by the Science Establishment. I can think of a few exmples but interestingly, nearly all in the field of medicine and was outright rejected, not by scientists, but by physicians. Ask any scientist in any branch of biology that ever contributes to medical knowledge and he or she will assure you that doctors are not scientists. There are also examples of scientists rejecting the notion that certain engineering goals could be achieved, like building a hydrogen bomb. But those are disagreements as to practical applicability. The law of conservation of energy and in particular the concept of entropy were controversial but I'd have to look into it further beofor concluding that they were 'outright rejected'. So how about some examples of scientific theories, outright rejected at first, which were ultimately accepted? Most new scientific theories that are eventually accepted, and indeed, many that are unltimately rejected, are immediately accepted as _scientifically viable_ from the outset. Examples include the evolutionary theories of Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin, the Copernican theory of the Solar System the Corpuscular theory of light, Special and General relativity, the Big Bang theory, quantum theory. Not everyone in the field accepted them from the outset but they weren't rejected as not appropriate for publication or debate. "Mainstream Science" rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige) in the status quo. So much so that there is a well-worn saying in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses." So well worn *I* never heard it befor. The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is more in mathematics. Perhaps you are familiar with the story about the debate on the existance of God between Diederot and Euler? I am troubled by a discipline that claims to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy. 'IDers' are plainly not the only people whose philosophy has been excluded from the public schools or scientific journals. Lots of people who claim to to have theories based on sound science do not get published. (Well a few self-publish on UseNet). The obvious difference between those and the 'IDers' is that the former generally do not have well-funded and political and religiously motivated sponsors. But sometimes they do. Back in the early 1980's there was an attempt to force a more Bibically literal brand of Creationism into the scientific literature and the public schools. They also relied on legal arguments but died back after a few setbacks in the court system. Whereas 'Creatiionsim' and the oxymoronic 'Scientific Creationsim' were ckommonly heard back then, there was not one peep about 'Intelligent Design'. While it may be that the origins of 'ID' go back befor then, it was not until that set back for America's Taliban wannabes that "Intelligent Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence. The bottom line is that 'Intelligent Design' is a plain english statement of the existance of a designer. Some religious sects for not speak their name for the Divine Being for religions I do not quite understand. But I do understand why the "Intelligent Designer" do not speak the name for their "Designer". It for the same reasons that some other cults won't tell you that the beleive in (non-divne) extraterestrial beings. -- FF |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
... I am well aware of the methods, claims, and philosophy of science. But evidently not the History. No need to condescend. Your tone is emblematic of the baked in arrogance of today's Science Establishment. Anyone who questions your orthodoxy is sneered upon. From Tycho Brache onward, there have always been the "wise men" of each generation to refused to accept the possibility they were wrong about something. It took singularities of thought from Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and all the rest to kick Science to the next level. There is so much that is factually wrong with that paragraph it is hard to decide where to start. Perhaps a more or less chronological approach will serve. You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that had to be kicked and it often kicked back. Your first example, is an exception. He kicked Science and Science resisted and won because he was WRONG. Tycho Brahe, in the face of religious opposition to the Copernican model came up with his own model for the solar system, a sort of middle ground model that pleased the religious establishment without totally abandoning recent progress in science. IOW, Brahe was a backslider. To conform to established religious decrees as to what constituted truth his model had the Earth at the center of the Solar System, with the Sun and the Moon in orbits about it, but then incorporated the Copernican concept by having the remaining planets orbit the Sun. One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of prison so he did the best he could without drawing the ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy can be made to many of today's public school administrators. A few centuries later one has to wonder if Brahe did not construct his model as a mockery of the religious viewpoint. If so, it appears that the clerics didn't get the joke which probably delighted Brahe even further. The scientific community resisted and ultimately rejected Brahe's theory not because it was new, but because it lacked scientific merit. Like ID, it was a contrivance developed to incorporate what had become scientifically undeniable into the previously established faith-based philosphy so as to make it palatable to those who were as poliltically powerful as they were scientifically ignorant. OTOH, the Copernican theory, open support of which put men in mortal danger at the hands of the religious and political establishments, was none-the-less widely and rapidly accepted in the scientific community because of its scientific merit, politics notwithstanding. Copernicus didn't need to kick anyone or anything. (I note you didn't mention Copernicus, possibly just an oversight.) Galileo advanced the Copernican theory through his observations and laid the groundwork for modern physics. For this he became the most respected scientist of his day, in the scientific community, but was feared and loathed (e.g. "sneered at") by the political and religious establishment which was concerned ONLY with what they perceived to be the societal implications of his work. The scientific merits of his work were NOT a consideration on the part of his oppressors. Newton, benefitted by living in a more enlighted time and country. Newton was lauded both in the scientific community and by his and foreign governments for his achievements. The scientific community did NOT resist Newton's contributions because their scientific merit was immediately clear. Newton didn't have to kick Science, Science came clamoring to his door eager for his work. Einstein's story is similar to Newton's. He received his Master's degree for the Special Theory of Relativity and the Nobel prize for his body of work in 1905. That is hardly 'sneering' on the part of Scientific 'orthodoxy'. As you know, when the Nazis came to power Einstein and other "Jewish Physicists" came under fire from politicians who clearly had no concern for the scientific merits of their work but found it both politically convenient to demonize them, and easy to accomplish as their consituency had no real understanding of or concern for the scientific merits of their work. Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys. None of the scientists you mentioned were "sneered at" by Scientific Orthodoxy. None of them "Kicked Science" to the next level in the sense of having to overcome some sort of entrained philosophical resistance. Anybody sneering or who needed to be kicked was either in the minority or a nonscientist to begin with. Two other scientists you did not mention are Darwin and Lamarck. During the later half of the nineteenth century the school of evolutionary theories identified with Lamarck was a widely accepted competitor with the theory of slow mutation and natural selection advanced by Darwin and Wallace. Ultimately, 'Lamarckism' though sustained several decades in the Soviet Union because of its appeal to that totalitarian government, died out largely because some of its predictions proved to be false while predictions based on slow mutation and natural selection proved to be true. Later, genetic theory provided a theoretical mechanism by which the inheritance of the new traits could occur, something both theories had lacked, and later still the discovery of chromosones and ultimately a physical, molecular basis for genes, provided a reproducible physical basis for understanding both inheritance and mutation. Together those pretty much put the evolutionary theory advanced by Darwin and Wallace on a firm material base. There was considerable reason to be skeptical of evolutionary theories that relied on mutation and inheritance before underlying mechnisms for those phenomena were discovered. Now the shoe is on the other foot. To argue against mutation (micro or macro) and natural selection one must come up with a reasonable hypothesis as to why those mutations and that inheritance will not occur. And then one must test that hypothesis. "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty much the evolutionary equivalent of Tycho Brahe putting the Earth back at the center of the solar system while leaving the planets in orbit about the sun. But with one important exception. Brahe devised his alternative but politically pleasing model befor the discovery of the theory of gravity which provided the underlying mechanism for the Copernican model. The "Intelligent Designers" came up with theirs long after the underlying mechanisms supporting mainstream evolutionary theory were well-understood. "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine intervention. No scientific theory will or even can disprove the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is dependant on divine intervention, is scientific. -- FF |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... This is not exactly right. *Some* Intelligent Design theories are proposed as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory. There are however other "intelligent design" theories (aka "authorship theories") that posit the existence of an intelligent creator that operated *by means of evolution*. Can you state a testable hypothesis that can be used to discriminate between the operation of evolution by an intelligent creator, and the operation of evolution without an intelligent creator? -- FF |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: charlie b wrote: ... One of the arguements the ID folks present is "this organism is extremely complex, too complex to merely just happen by accident. therefore it had to be designed by some intelligent entity". That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they have a Scientific case to make to support that conclusion. We may well never know, because the Science Establishment today it putting huge resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor) to avoid having this debate. What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They can certainly establish their own journals, societies and hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists, astrologers and polygraphers have. Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes. Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not, in reality, flock together. That the Soviets supported Lamarckism is not proof that Lamarckism was wrong. But by the time it came to pass that the Soviet Government was the ONLY supporter of Lamarckism it was time to question either the honesty or the sanity as well as the competence of the Larmackists of that era. Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in someone else's! You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both. I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious supporters. Even more importantly, there is still some fair debate to be had about just how many "iterations" there really were. Evolutionary theory is still open to a lot of interesting criticism even without ID or authorship ideas. That is, criticism within the framework of today's Science. Of course. For example, evolution *within* a particular species, over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not demonstrated by direct experiment. If they were, the discussion about Evolution would truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment has to do to shut up the IDers is to show (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say, Ted Kennedy. And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully ignores the practical matter of the time required for the process to occur. A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle. Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation from the natural developement of varietals within a species just like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and by extrapolation from present day motion. If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers on continental drift would THAT upset you? -- FF |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - During disaster, Bush fiddled | Metalworking | |||
| OT - “I am George W. Bush and I approve this mess.” | Metalworking | |||
| OT - "George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior." | Metalworking | |||
| GW Bush | Metalworking | |||
| OT-I ain't No senator's son... | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
