Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tim Daneliuk wrote: 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. Funny stuff. I think that's been proven. Didn't he crawl ashore at Chappaquiddick? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
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. Then you're not reading the IDers I have. While many/most of them *are* Theists, their science claims do not spring from the presumption of the Divine. Quite the opposite, they claim that observed complexity ("observed" by *science*) cannot be adequately explained by proesses like mutation and natural selection. They argue that the science drives you to the presumption of an author, not the other way around. 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. It depends on whether you are propsing physics or metaphysics. The IDers attempt to do both and do not separate them well, IMHO which is at least where some of the confusion lies. 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. I was responding you *your* initial point, "You seldom see authors calling each other names ..." 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. Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly well better be still when the IDers want their theories taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics. 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. OK, "outright rejected" was an overstatement on my part. I should have better said, "met with considerable resistance at first because of the inertia of the prevalent scientific orthodoxy." Better? "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. Strange, you seem well versed in matter scientific. It is a semi-famous quote. I'll see if I can find a cite. 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 "Intelligen ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence.] You prove my point. You just *can't* get through this without going ad hominem - it diminished your argument considerably. 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. More ad homina - not relevant or to the point. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
SNIP of interesting history of science 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 more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist* the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public trough. This is once of the principal sources of the intertia in the science establishment IMO. More history snipped I stipulate your history is correct. I think you are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas met with from within the establishment science of their day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right (except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the turning points of science we're discussing here didn't just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance. 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. This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular culture without significant opposition for a long, long time. The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these matters. SNIP "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author" theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not. "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine intervention. Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their *claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others in the community of scientists seem to have. In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations. So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science, etc." Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder that a moment. No scientific theory will or even can disprove the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is dependant on divine intervention, is scientific. Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does. I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always be blind in one eye. If more scientists understood metaphysics and more theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive ideas. I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am arguing for its *augmentation* . This is valid so long as everyone involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought. The goal is not to promote better science or better metaphysics. The goal is to better apprehend Truth by whatever means are most appropriate. P.S. Oh, and for the record, some of the theologians under whom I enjoyed a portion of my education, had the *exact same* bunker mentality, unwillingness to engage with their challengers, slavish adherence to the methods they best understood, and all the other stuff that I've suggested are bad practice on the part of the science establishment. It seems that nothing is more 'sacred' than what you already believe ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
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. You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science* (or at least they say they are). "We will never know" whether or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific* peer review of those claims. This is fundamentally different than "not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes." Because theology and chemistry are not both scientific disciplines and thus not open to similar review processes. The essence of the ID claim is that (at least part of it) is that it is *science* so why shouldn't the existing infrastructure of science be called upon to review it? 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. Ad hominem SNIP 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! No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited to evaluate claims made in/against their field. 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. No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified the IDers might have a point. I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious supporters. You can believe what you like. Among any group of people, *including scientists* there is wide variability in honesty, intellectual clarity, and motivation. Dismissing the honor of an entire group of people because you don't like what they say strikes me as pretty reactionary. 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. All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone. The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker of the methods available to science. All I have ever argued for in this thread (and elswhere) is that, since no experimental verification is possible, there needs to be a more open attitude towards alternative explanations and the rapid destruction of new bad theories as they arise. If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers on continental drift would THAT upset you? If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing, yes it would. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Sep 2005 16:16:03 EDT, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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. Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the initial genesis of the universe to which they pledge their allegience to the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause. The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes). Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other theology. One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly a scientific comment. 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/ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Mark & Juanita wrote: One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly a scientific comment. Well, we might try another quote from Darwin: "We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act." |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
"Charlie Self" wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly a scientific comment. Well, we might try another quote from Darwin: "We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act." Man cannot create a worm, but we create gods by the thousands. (somebody said that) |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... 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. You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower. "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
snip
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. more snipping 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. still snipping 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. Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly well better be still when the IDers want their theories taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics. lots more snipping - trying to keep this short. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Putting aside the name calling, here are some considerations. The ID "scientists" need to approach the problem scientifically if they expect scientific acceptance. This means using the scientific method: 1. propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon 2. design experimental tests that show that the hypothesis does, indeed, explain something that is not otherwise adequately explained by conventional science 3. report these results through refereed journals and conferences. If 1 and 2 are proper and compelling, the results will be accepted, and hence the hypothesis will be established. 4. keep in mind Occam's razor: the best explanation is the simplest one. This process usually is iterated, with one set of results suggesting more investigations. However, repeated assertions that "something" is too complicated for natural selection to account for it does not constitute a meaningful hypothesis or its experimental investigation. The ID advocates have not yet built up a scientific case to insert into the science curriculum. IMHO Steve |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Peterson wrote:
snip 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. more snipping 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. still snipping 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. Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly well better be still when the IDers want their theories taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics. lots more snipping - trying to keep this short. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Putting aside the name calling, here are some considerations. The ID "scientists" need to approach the problem scientifically if they expect scientific acceptance. This means using the scientific method: 1. propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon 2. design experimental tests that show that the hypothesis does, indeed, explain something that is not otherwise adequately explained by conventional science 3. report these results through refereed journals and conferences. If 1 and 2 are proper and compelling, the results will be accepted, and hence the hypothesis will be established. 4. keep in mind Occam's razor: the best explanation is the simplest one. This process usually is iterated, with one set of results suggesting more investigations. However, repeated assertions that "something" is too complicated for natural selection to account for it does not constitute a meaningful hypothesis or its experimental investigation. The ID advocates have not yet built up a scientific case to insert into the science curriculum. IMHO Steve I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues separated... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Robatoy wrote:
In article . com, "Charlie Self" wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly a scientific comment. Well, we might try another quote from Darwin: "We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act." Man cannot create a worm, but we create gods by the thousands. (somebody said that) In a related vein: Q: What is the difference between God and a Surgeon? A: God does not consider himself a Surgeon. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneliuk wrote: 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 ...) No surprise to me, having had a bit of Catholic education myself. 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. Astrologers claim they have a scientific case to make that planetary motions affect human behaviour. I submit that it is not at all inapropriate to deny them space in Astronomy and Psychology Journals even though some Astorlogers, unlike ALL IDers deny that there is any metaphysical component or conclusion in their work. Scientifically, ID is a nonstarter because it presumes, invokes, or draws conclusions about a metaphysical influence. Science by its very nature purposefully excludes metaphysical considerations. Science is a search for physical explanations for natural phenomena. 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. But that is cetainly NOT what is at issue with the ID. Any number of scientists who are adherants of religions that include creation mythology regard natural law as having been written by God's hand. None-the-less they recognize that science is the search for understanding of those laws, not the identification of the author. .... 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. Not so fast. When grandparents assist in the raising of their grandchildren the parents who are in the prime of life are freed to expend more of their time on other matters important to the survival of the species. Thus there is an evolutionary advantage to long life which may outweigh the cost in additional resources used to sustain that long life. -- FF |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
And God Said, Let There Be Light in Kansas
By Gene Weingarten Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 14, 1999; Page C01 Memo to: The members of the Kansas Board of Education From: God Your decision to eliminate the teaching of evolution as science. Thank you for your support. Much obliged. Now, go forth and multiply. Beget many children. And yea, your children shall beget children. And their children shall beget children, and their children's children after them. And in time the genes that have made you such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection. Because that is how it works. Listen, I love all my creatures equally, and gave each his own special qualities to help him on Earth. The horse I gave great strength. The antelope I gave great grace and speed. The dung beetle I gave great stupidity, so he doesn't realize he is a dung beetle. Man I gave a brain. Use it, okay? I admit I am not perfect. I've made errors. (Armpit hair--what was I thinking?) But do you Kansans seriously believe that I dropped half-a-billion-year-old trilobite skeletons all over my great green Earth by mistake? What, I had a few lying around some previous creation in the Andromeda galaxy, and they fell through a hole in my pocket? You were supposed to find them. And once you found them, you were supposed to draw the appropriate, intelligent conclusions. That's what I made you for. To think. The folks who wrote the Bible were smart and good people. Mostly, they got it right. But there were glitches. Imprecisions. For one thing, they said that Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and then Cain begat Enoch. How was that supposed to have happened? They left out Tiffany entirely! Well, they also were a little off on certain elements of timing and sequence. So what? You guys were supposed to figure it all out for yourselves, anyway. When you stumble over the truth, you are not supposed to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and proceed on as though nothing had happened. If you find a dinosaur's toe, you're not supposed to look for reasons to call it a croissant. You're not big, drooling idiots. For that, I made dogs. Why do you think there are no fossilized human toes dating from a hundred million years ago? Think about it. It's okay if you think. In fact, I prefer it. That's why I like Charlie Darwin. He was always a thinker. Still is. He and I chat frequently. I know a lot of people figure that if man evolved from other organisms, it means I don't exist. I have to admit this is a reasonable assumption and a valid line of thought. I am in favor of thought. I encourage you to pursue this concept with an open mind, and see where it leads you. That's all I have to say right now, except that I'm really cheesed off at laugh tracks on sitcoms, and the NRA, and people who make simple declarative sentences sound like questions? Oh, wait. There's one more thing. Did you read in the newspapers yesterday how scientists in Australia dug up some rocks and found fossilized remains of life dating back further than ever before? Primitive, multicelled animals on Earth nearly 3 billion years ago, when the planet was nothing but roiling muck and ice and fire. And inside those cells was . . . DNA. Incredibly complex strands of chemicals, laced together in a scheme so sophisticated no one yet understands exactly how it works. I wonder who could have thought of something like that, back then. Just something to gnaw on. © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Robatoy wrote in news:design-
: In article .com, wrote: Tim wrote: 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. Call it a work in progress. The evolution hasn't quite finished with Ted yet. This is by no means my forte, but I have been thinking a lot as of late about life, and why all this is here, about religion, and quantum physics....I like the idea of intelligent design, I think we are hard wired to look to a higher power, sometimes faith is all we have to keep us going.... Then again, Darwin has his points...and I really do like the idea of evolution, it just makes sense to me...most religious folks think the bible should be translated word for word...I think that blinds you from other posible ideas...although I do think a lot can be learned there as well...if we read it and think about it... The more I ponder this matter...the more I think that maybe both ideas are valid...When God said let there be light...maybe he did it with the Big Bang.... Questions and comments welcome.... DCH |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
BTW, none of this has anything to do with George W Bush drinking,
but it is STILL off-topic. This discussion now fall squarely within the subject matter of talk.origins but I suppose people who want Scientific Journals to publish papers about God are not going to be inclined at all to moving this thread to a newsgroup where it belongs. Not, I daresay, a coincidence. Mark & Juanita wrote: On 29 Sep 2005 16:16:03 EDT, Tim Daneliuk wrote: 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. Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the initial genesis of the universe ... Which is an issue of cosmology, not evolutionary biology and I daresay that NO Journal of nor conference on Evolutionary Biology will or should accept papers on cosmology. to which they pledge their allegience to the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause. The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes). Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other theology. Aside from the confabulation I addressed above, it is clear that you do not undersand the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang theory does not presume that the Universe was preceded by nothing. However, "Creation Science" does presume that God Created the Universe, "from the void". Of course, like most scientists, I don't have a problem with that. Putting aside for the moment the question of whom is a scientist and whom is not almost everyone who calls himself a scientist does have a problem with religionist insisting that "God did it" must be an acceptable element of scientific theory. For crying out loud, any time someone runs accross something they can't explain they can just declare that "God did it" and be done with it. Science came into existance precisely because some people decided to look for non-divine casuality. One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly a scientific comment. Before explaining why your final statement is plainly wrong let me proceed on the assumption that the quote is reasonably accurate and suggest a probable context. Natural Selection and adapted traits were readily understood and observed. The stumbling block for evolution theory in the 19th Century was the issue of inheritance. While selective breeding was understood to the extend that it had becomea very useful process there was still no underlying physical process that could account for the inheritance of traits whether they had been selected for or acquired. This was equally a problem for Lamarck and Darwin. So probably Darwin's remarks was in the context of THAT problem. Need I point out how easy it would have been for either Larmarck or Darwin to address that deficiency by modifying the second laws of their respective theories to say: "Those traits are passed on to the next generation by Divine intervention." Logically, their theories would then be proven but only if, a priori_ you accept a logic that allows metaphysical intervention in the material world. To their credit neither man resorted to that, the oldest excuse for an explanation that is to be found in the historical record. They had enough backbone (or not enough chutzpah) to make such a claim. So the statement attributed to Darwin: "yes, there were problems, but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation" IS a very scientific statement. Scentific theories are by their very nature the best explanations for Natural phenomena that are independent of metaphysical considerations. Until you accept that, you reject science. "God chose to do it this way" is not an element of a scientific theory. It is an excuse to not do science at all. -- FF |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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. You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower. No and I suggest you read what I went on to write about each of them. If some contemporaries of Copernicus were reluctant to accept the Copernican model, or spoke out against it, maybe it was because others who did not were being burned at the stake. That is not an example of scientists allowing THEIR politics and religion ot get in their way. Fact is, prior to Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion there was no scientifically compelling reason to prefer a heliocentric model over a geocentric one. Kepler's laws made teh heliocentric model more attractive becuase it then had predictive value, albeit through correlation, not causative considerations. The discovery of the law of gravity and the developement of dymanics were needed to provide a sound theoretical basis on which to prefer one over the other. A reluctance to accept a new theory that lacks a sound scientific basis to prefer it over existing theory unless and until such a basis is demonstrated is not adherance to orthodoxy. "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. Finally? In spite of him? Of the four papers cited for Einstein's Nobel prize, three relied on quantum mechanics. That was in 1905. At that time, Special Relativity, the only non-quantum paper cited, was the theory most in doubt. As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery) said: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too. I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus, Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown when they see one who laughed at Bozo. The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at "Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design". -- FF |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
The question remains, unanswered: Is George Bush drinking?
(And how could you tell) Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: 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. You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science* (or at least they say they are). One of mistakes is accepting that the IDers are making "claims of science", on their say so alone, and then extrapolating from that to the conclusion that they are not getting their articles published because they are being repressed by "Scientific Orthodoxy". Instead of invokig conspiracy therory, shouldn't you consider the likelihood that they are not being published because their papers do not rise to the standards, or conform to the subject matter of the journals to which they are submitted? Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers and compare them to the articles that are being published in those same Journals beofor accusing editors and peers about whom you truly know nothing, of malice or iconoclasty? "We will never know" whether or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific* peer review of those claims. What makes you think there has been no peer review? Maybe those papers were went out for peer review and the peers were uninimous in ther comments to the editors that the papers were crap. For that matter, can you be so sure than any 'IDer' actrually submitted any such paper in the first place? ... 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. Ad hominem No no, that was guilt by association. It is not ad hominem to call a dishonest person, a dishonest person. SNIP 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! No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited to evaluate claims made in/against their field. Evidently those experts when acting in their roles as editors of Journals in their fields, or peers who review those papers have concluded that the putative papers in question are not appropriate for publication. So why don't you accept their evaluation? 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. No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified the IDers might have a point. I am by no means sure that I believe you. Astronomers do not debate Astrologers or accept their papers for publication in Astronomy Journals, the American Lung Association does not debate the cigarette companies or allow them to publish in their literature. Simply engaging in the debate, no matter how ludricous or indefensible the position of the opponent may be, lends credence to the misperception that there is a controversy. In science, there is no ID controversy because "God did it that way" puts the issue outside of the boundaries of science itself. 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. All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone. The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker of the methods available to science. No the ideas are rejected for publication in a scientific Journal because they are fundamentally metaphysical in nature. (Or rather, I presume they are. You have not yet shown that any ID article ahs ever been written, let alone submitted for publication.) Whereas Scientific Journals uniformly reject papers confabulating metaphysics with physical reality there are plenty of Journals devoted to Metaphysical Considerations that do not mind inclusion of some physical considerations. The IDers can publish there. Indeed, since the sine quo non of ID is the inclusion of a metaphysical element, by your argument it is the metaphysicists who are most competent to evaluate it. The Evolutionary biologists freely admit to having no professional expertise in metaphysics. .... If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers on continental drift would THAT upset you? If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing, yes it would. That arguement adn some above, demonstrate a profound of the proces sof publication is a Scientific Journal. Pretty much every paper that is submitted gets a hearing. It doesn't get to trial (e.g. publication) unless it passes peer review. Probably most don't make it to peer review for the same reasons that most lawsuits are returned to the petitioner by a clerk without even being reviewed by a judge. Of course we (including you) won't know for sure unless we see some examples of what you claim to be happening. -- FF |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues separated... Do you suppose that maybe that makes it difficult for them to get a paper accepted for publication? -- FF |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: SNIP of interesting history of science 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 more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist* the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public trough. This is once of the principal sources of the intertia in the science establishment IMO. That could become true if the 'science establishment' backslides to the point where it must placate the 'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied to a stake. More history snipped I stipulate your history is correct. I think you are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas met with from within the establishment science of their day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right (except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the turning points of science we're discussing here didn't just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance. Perhaps you confuse pointed argumetn and other thorough vetting _with_ resistance. Scientists accept new science as fast as it can be shown to be correct. Most new science is shown to be incorrect so of course scientist do not rush to embrace new theory just because it looks like it _might be_ correct. Scientists do not determine the correctness of theory by argument alone, They require physical evidence and THAT Mr Daneliuk is one of the most important features that distinguishes science from metaphysics. 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. This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular culture without significant opposition for a long, long time. False to fact as any one who publishes shcoolbooks or teaches biology to college freshmen can tell you. The "Creation Science" movement had not yet died away before the "ID" rebranding of it emerged and at the time the creation science 'controversy' was created, evolutionary biology was by no means ubiquitous in the public schools. My Boss, a well educated man had never heard of Lamarck before I mentioned him in a conversation. The fact is that the central theory of modern biology gets short shrift at best in almost all the public schools. The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these matters. You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question' evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment' in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'. I daresay demonization is apt. SNIP "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author" theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not. But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element of each is "God did it". "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine intervention. Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their *claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others in the community of scientists seem to have. Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected because they do not rise to the objective standards of the journals to which they have been submitted. You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty and that is why journals have peer review. Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in controversy? The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to GOD published becuase they want to use it as a means of forcing religious teaching back into the public schools. In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations. So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science, etc." I daresay that is the sort of approach you typically label "ad hominem". However, I will point out that there are legions of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions who also regard ID as unscientific. Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder that a moment. The mere act of engagement lends credence to their claims. If the AGU were to debate teh FLat Earth societ on the issue of the shape of the Earth the papers the next day would run the story under the headline "Shape of the earth debated, opinions differ". An then the flat Earthers would argue for the inclusion of their model into the public school curriculum, or at least for the schools ot be llowed to "Teach the Controversy" but not in the a class devoted to consideration of current social issue but in the Science Classrooms. But the reality is that the IDers are worse than that. They are afraid that teaching that it is possible to understand something without invoking God will lead students away from God and religion. If that happens, how woul Pat Robertson keep his programming on the air? No scientific theory will or even can disprove the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is dependant on divine intervention, is scientific. Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does. I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always be blind in one eye. It may be argued that a person who approaches life ignoring metaphysics is blind in one eye but a scientist approaching science while setting aside his metaphysical beliefs is deaf in both eyes. If more scientists understood metaphysics and more theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive ideas. THAT is not a problem. I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am arguing for its *augmentation* . Some people argue that silicone implants augment breasts. Others argue that they merely enlarge the breasts without augemntaion in any real sense. It is an issue incontroversy. But there is no controversy as to whether or not silicone IS breast tissue. This is valid so long as everyone involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought. But you repeatedly argue for a merger of the two, specifically for the publication in scientific journals of papers pupoprting to present scientific evidence for the existance of God. -- FF |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... wrote: 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. You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science* (or at least they say they are). "We will never know" whether or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific* peer review of those claims. This is fundamentally different than "not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes." Because theology and chemistry are not both scientific disciplines and thus not open to similar review processes. The essence of the ID claim is that (at least part of it) is that it is *science* so why shouldn't the existing infrastructure of science be called upon to review it? 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. Ad hominem The reason that their claims are never reviewed is because they never make any. All they do is state a few unfounded hypotheses with no evidence or claim behind them. If you doubt this then, please go ask ask a few. you will quickly find out that they fall into two camps. The first are the scientifically illiterate who wouldn't know a theory if it bit them. These people simply regurgitate what they read in some booklet somewhere, with as little understanding as a speak-and-spell. The second are the morally bankrupt who know they do not have a scientific leg to stand on, but hope that by spewing out a bunch of techno-babble, that they can convince those in the first camp that they aren't being fed a bunch of pure BS. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues separated... Do you suppose that maybe that makes it difficult for them to get a paper accepted for publication? Of course -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
SNIP A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist* the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public trough. This is once of the principal sources of the intertia in the science establishment IMO. That could become true if the 'science establishment' backslides to the point where it must placate the 'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied to a stake. Hey, if the science establishment wishes to not be under the scrutiny of populist politics (which I think we both agree damages science) it ought to find private, voluntary funding for both research and schools. Then no elected school board could dictate much of anything. _might be_ correct. Scientists do not determine the correctness of theory by argument alone, They require physical evidence and THAT Mr Daneliuk is one of the most important features that distinguishes science from metaphysics. "Physical Evidence", huh? Well ... some of that is pretty tenuous "evidence" arrived at by abstract modeling and induction upon the slightest physical hints. The whole Big Picture of evolution hinges on a lot of inductive steps far removed from physical evidence. I cited one such example previously: There is no direct physical evidence showing a jump from lower- to higher biocomplexity. This step is inferred from what physical evidence does exist. Moreover, Science and Metaphysics both proceed from undemonstrable starting points. They both assume their foundational methods to be reliable and correct. There is no a priori way to show one as better or more correct than the other except, possibly, by means of utilitarian arguments. Metatphysics too requires "evidence" just not apparently of a sort your willing to grant has equal status with "physical evidence". SNIP The fact is that the central theory of modern biology gets short shrift at best in almost all the public schools. Uh .. pretty much *all* thinking get short shrift in public schools - they're *public* which means that by their very nature their first allegiance is to political forces and secondly to the NEA... The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these matters. You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question' evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment' in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'. I daresay demonization is apt. That's not exactly the emphasis of my accusation. My emphasis is that the science establishment, faced with a political environment (public school) has appeared to be running from the fight rather than confront it. It makes some of us wonder just why. I do not attribute any particularly Machiavellian motive to this at all. SNIP "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author" theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not. But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element of each is "God did it". The essential elment of the *metaphysics* is "God did it", but this is not necessarily presupposed in the scientific claims of such theories - at least some of them. Moreover, Science ought to remain completely mute to the statement that "God did it" because it has nothing to offer in either support or refutation. Whether the Universe operates by magic, having sprung forth from a burst of smoke from Nothing Whatsoever, or is the product of a creating God involved in His creation at every quanta is not a question Science can remotely address. This does not keep a good many Scientists from treating Theists like idiot children. "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine intervention. Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their *claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others in the community of scientists seem to have. Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected because they do not rise to the objective standards of the journals to which they have been submitted. Because I have read/heard far more ad homina commentary from people defending establishment science than I have seen/heard thoughtful refutation. This may be a knowledge problem on my part. So, if you can direct me to a clear refutation of ID that points out why it has no merit being considered as Science, I'm all eyes ... You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty and that is why journals have peer review. Oh c'mon. There are plenty of lousy or marginal papers published in all manner of Scientific journals. Sometimes this happens by accident, sometimes because the claims of the writer are sufficiently opaque that it needs wider peer review. Putting an ID paper on "trial" in a journal like "Nature" would be good for everyone involved. It would require the IDers to get their story clear and to the poing scientifically, and the critics could line up to take their swing at it. Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in controversy? The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to GOD published becuase they want to use it as a means of forcing religious teaching back into the public schools. Again, the foul here is having public schools in the first place. This is a debate much like the one about the Plege Of Allegiance. These problems disappear when we quit abusing taxpayers to pay for schools and let parents figure out which schools they wish to fund themselves. This would also have the salutary effect of elimination the anti-knowledge madrassas found in most major universities's humanities and social science programs. In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations. So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science, etc." I daresay that is the sort of approach you typically label "ad hominem". However, I will point out that there are legions of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions who also regard ID as unscientific. I would be grateful for a cite here. I think we've pretty much beat this to death and will leave the last word to you on the matter. I do appreciate the civil tone you've maintained throughout... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery) said: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too. I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus, Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown when they see one who laughed at Bozo. The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at "Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design". Disengage yourself from the argumentative mode and read as if to understand the writer, versus spin an unrelated set of paragraphs. Every scientist does, in spite of your contention, have a belief set that colors their skepticism and even denial of others' explanations of reality. The source may be religion in the traditional sense, environmentalism, love or hate of technology in general, tradition, even "political correctness" - makes not a difference. The point is, nobody individually, nor science as an entity, starts tabula rasa in evaluating observations. Wouldn't get far if they did, because science presumes rules govern the universe, and they use the rules as much to rule out as to predict. Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used the quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On 9/30/2005 8:03 AM George mumbled something about the following:
wrote in message ups.com... 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. You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower. "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. Actually, the saying is. "God does not play dice with the universe" (you missed the word 'play'). This was in deferrence to Laplace's theory that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. -- Odinn RCOS #7 SENS(less) "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org rot13 to reply |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery) said: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too. I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus, Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown when they see one who laughed at Bozo. The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at "Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design". Disengage yourself from the argumentative mode and read as if to understand the writer, versus spin an unrelated set of paragraphs. Every scientist does, in spite of your contention, have a belief set that colors their skepticism and even denial of others' explanations of reality. The source may be religion in the traditional sense, environmentalism, love or hate of technology in general, tradition, even "political correctness" - makes not a difference. The point is, nobody individually, nor science as an entity, starts tabula rasa in evaluating observations. Wouldn't get far if they did, because science presumes rules govern the universe, and they use the rules as much to rule out as to predict. OK, agreed. I trust you will also agree that science as an institution and scientists as people recognize this phenomenum to be a flaw, even if they are blind to when they themselves personally are guilty of it. Which is why a major effort is made in science to adopt protocols that protect against, among other things, observer bias. It is also why there is peer review and why an editor of a peer- reviewed Journal can justify returning without further comment, a paper that alleges or draws conclusions about divine intervetion. That is a pretty clear indicator that the author has crossed the line between objectivity and religious/political beliefs. Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used the quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate. Understood. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further. Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal. Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize. I am quite confident that, if called upon to review a paper invoking as a natural mechanism or drawing a conclusions as to divine intervention he would have recommended against publication. No one is arguing that scientists should not believe in God or even be outspoken or religous issues even as they relate, in a philosophic sense, to their work. The argument is that a scientist should not intermingle religious explanations with natural law itself. Religion and science are close philosophic neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors. Einstein never proposed "God does not play dice" as a natural law. -- FF |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Odinn wrote: On 9/30/2005 8:03 AM George mumbled something about the following: ... "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. Actually, the saying is. "God does not play dice with the universe" (you missed the word 'play'). ... Not to be too persnickedy about it but I expect it was first said in German. Probably both of your translations are correct, since 'to dice' and 'to play dice' mean the same thing in English, the latter is simply more commonplace, though my preference would be the more anachronistic 'to cast dice'. -- FF |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used the quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate. Understood. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further. Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal. Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize. Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee just about had to give him the prize based on his 1905 papers, but the one they cited was the explanation of the photoelectric effect, the least revolutionary of the bunch. See http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/. I am quite confident that, if called upon to review a paper invoking as a natural mechanism or drawing a conclusions as to divine intervention he would have recommended against publication. No one is arguing that scientists should not believe in God or even be outspoken or religous issues even as they relate, in a philosophic sense, to their work. The argument is that a scientist should not intermingle religious explanations with natural law itself. Religion and science are close philosophic neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors. Einstein never proposed "God does not play dice" as a natural law. -- FF Editors of scientific journals would love to publish something as revolutionary as ID, if the work would withstand peer review of its science. So far, ID hasn't done so, and IMHO won't. What will happen is that continued investigations will add more and more data that support evolution by survival of the fittest. The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public Education says: Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. I am Steve #564 See http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message nk.net... It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. "Inappropriate?" "Irresponsible?" Sounds like value judgment to me. So who are these people who restrict what will and won't be taught or thought? Do they demand full human sacrifice, or only information for open minds? Bad enough textbooks have to get a Nihil Obstat from the NOW, and an imprimatur from the NAACP. Now we have to run it by your "list" too? |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Others disagree.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Mumble on. "Odinn" wrote in message ... On 9/30/2005 8:03 AM George mumbled something about the following: wrote in message ups.com... 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. You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower. "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. Actually, the saying is. "God does not play dice with the universe" (you missed the word 'play'). This was in deferrence to Laplace's theory that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. -- |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Subject
More fish **** bull****. It doesn't belong here. Lew |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/1/2005 6:39 PM George mumbled something about the following:
Others disagree. http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Mumble on. "Odinn" wrote in message ... On 9/30/2005 8:03 AM George mumbled something about the following: wrote in message groups.com... 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. You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower. "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him. Actually, the saying is. "God does not play dice with the universe" (you missed the word 'play'). This was in deferrence to Laplace's theory that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. -- Disagree about what? About it being "God does not play dice" instead of "God does not dice"? Quoted from the site that you posted. Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. Or disagree about it being in deference to Laplace? Quoted the next sentence from the same site you posted. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. Now what is Hawkins disagreeing with me about again? -- Odinn RCOS #7 SENS(less) "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org rot13 to reply |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Peterson wrote: ... Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal. Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize. Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee just about had to give him the prize based on his 1905 papers, but the one they cited was the explanation of the photoelectric effect, the least revolutionary of the bunch. See http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/. An excellent article but I disagree on one point: While I, and certainly nearly every other physicist alive today would not hesitate to declare the Special Theory of Relativity to be by far the most important work published in physics that year, most I daresay would consider his paper On the Photoelectric Effect, to be much more important than the other two. Brownian motion was already qualitatively understood, and his paper on the Specific Heats of Salts, simply did not not have the far reaching effects of either of the two. As you probably know, in his paper on the Photoelectric Effect Einstein resolved a ~50-year old conundrum that was so vexing to Phyisics that it was called "The Ultraviolet Catastrophe". By successfully applying quantum theory to the problem Einstein cemented the rols of the quanta in theoretical physics. -- FF |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: "Steve Peterson" wrote in message nk.net... It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. "Inappropriate?" "Irresponsible?" Sounds like value judgment to me. Me too. Dunno about you, but if my tax dollars are going to pay for public education I want to get good value in return. -- FF |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:36:11 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote: .... snip The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public Education says: Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with severely. FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory. I am Steve #564 See http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: Steve Peterson wrote: ... See http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/. An excellent article but I disagree on one point: Apologies for misremembering the timeline. By 1921 EInstein had published a great body of work more important than his paper on the photoelectric effect. But outside of relativity, I daresay his work on the photoelectric effect was the most important. -- FF |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Mark & Juanita wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:36:11 GMT, "Steve Peterson" ... i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with severely. Even if that were true, it would be _scientific_ orthodox dogma and therefor would be in its proper place in a science classroom, along with other scientific 'orthodox dogma' like conservation of mass and energy. This, in contrast to 'ID' which being an orthodox religious dogma, belongs in the religion classroom. FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory. All scientist who are worth a damn strongly question all sceintific theory at every opportunity. Science is advanced by doubt. "God did it." does not provide such an opportunity. A list of biologists and an examination, in their proper context, of their comments, might be illuminating. -- FF |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"George" George@least writes:
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message nk.net... It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. "Inappropriate?" "Irresponsible?" Sounds like value judgment to me. So who are these people who restrict what will and won't be taught or thought? Do they demand full human sacrifice, or only information for open minds? Yes, let's teach voodoo, astrology, hex signs, tea reading, palm reading, Tarot, water dowsing, spiritualism, psychometry, and phrenology as valid forms of science and scientific thought in our schools. Who really needs to understand concepts like "hypothesis" "experiment" or "control?" And be sure to use Road Runner cartoons to demontrate principles of physics. We all know that if we flap our arms fast enough, we can protect ourselves when we fall over a cliff. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Mark & Juanita writes:
i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with severely. The "theory" of evolution has predicted measured events millions of times accurately. No other theory can accurately predict what we measure with every fossil we find. If you have another theory that can be shown to be accurate 99.99999% of the time, please submit it to a journal for review by peers. For instance, if we find a horse-like fossil from rocks created in the olicocege period, paleontologists can predict characteristics of the fossil that they have never seen, even if it's a new variety. There may be, and have been, surprises in the fossil record, as we learn more and more. But the surprises are small. We don't see horses suddenly changing from 2-legged to 4-legged creatures, or fossils of Unicorns. Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity. Facts are facts. The parahippus came after the kalobatippus, which came after the miohippus, which came after the epihippus, which came after the pachynolophus, etc. FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory. It's okay to question it. Scientists can question everything. That's what they do. But science is based on hypothesis and experiment. We can use evolution to predict the characteristics of fossils of different geological ages, including fossils of new and unexpected types and categories. ID has predicted nothing, and there is no way to measure its accuracy. As I understand it, It tries to explain a LACK of knowledge. It tries to say that between fossil A and C, there was no intermediate fossil. So the theory can only be disproved one example at a time, and never ever proved. I can propose a theory that the universe was created at the moment of my birth. This includes everyone "older" than I to be created instantly with their apparent age, factual evidence, and memory, all done by God for my benefit. (Something similar is done by literal creationists, as light from stars millions of light years away must have been created by God in transit on their way to earth.) There is no way to disprove this theory I have proposed. That's because it isn't science. Perhaps those scientists who believe in Intelligent Design can describe a way to test their hypothesis? I'd like to see this. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
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 |