| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message ... You can't predict anything with evolution. Sure you can. Sorry Bruce. You stepped off the path on this one. You're confusing process with result. Evolution is a process, and if you assume it's directed toward a result, then you might be an IDer. It's not a straight-line process, and therefore by its nature unpredictable. If we consider examples found as steps leading to a present, we can find more and more to shorten the gaps, though we can never tell if the creature under study is specifically a transition toward success or failure. Pre is before, dicere is speak. All your examples are post-dict. |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message ... Nope. See my other post. Ask a paleonology to predict the characteristics of a horse fossil in rocks 25 millions years old. See my other, then revise to "ask a paleontologist to state what characteristics a fossil of X years vintage would have to have to be classified as a transitional horse." Then, sadly, after the classification, discover that you had a form which flourished briefly and died out on a small island with no connection to the mainstream, merely parallel development. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , justme wrote:
In article , says... In article .com, wrote: Few scientists will fall for the egg/equinox legend but _The State Legislature set pi = 3_ is rather popular among them. You know, don't you, that *that* one is actually true (or nearly so). Well, maybe for large values of 3 :-) No, I mean about the legislature nearly voting to declare pi = 3. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess. I don't agree. Neither did Albert Einstein, who after all scientific observations concluded that there was a designer. A common misconception. Says who? For more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Written March 24, 1954). scott Thanks for your contribution Scott but I didn't make the claim that he believed in a personal God. Intelligent Design doesn't demand a personal God, that would be a matter of interpretation, or religion. Some quotes by Einstein: http://as1.chem.nottingham.ac.uk/~Aaron/quotest.htm "The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:
| Charlie Self wrote: | || Tim Daneliuk wrote: || ||| I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this. ||| I've said all the way though this thread that existing ||| science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful ||| debate with people like the IDers rather than running from ||| them. The very fact that we have never observed "something ||| springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the ||| Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep ||| questions about existing methods of science and how they ||| might be improved. || || The problem with civility of discourse in this case is not with the || scientists. It is the IDers who insist they are correct, without an || iota of proof, and who get excessively forceful about it, || insisting on equality with proven science. | | How many of the IDers have you personally read? I've just started, | but I've not seen a single instance of what you describe so far. | The behavior you describe is more likely something you will find | in some school board meeting, not among the intellectuals within | the ID movement. And - as I've said before - we can fix the school | board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded | education. Trying to make "intellectual" a dirty word? With all of its warts, our tax-funded educational system is one of the major underpinnings of a society that's been struggling (with a remarkable degree of success) since its inception to provide equal opportunity for all. My personal past experience with people who want to "fix the school board problem" has been that they (the fixers) don't even bother to attend the meetings. Rather, they whine loudly about what was decided and done "while they weren't looking". IMO, the only way to fix most problems with school boards is to go to the meetings, talk with stakeholders, and (if you're sure can do a better job) run for election to the board yourself. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message ... IMO, the only way to fix most problems with school boards is to go to the meetings, talk with stakeholders, and (if you're sure can do a better job) run for election to the board yourself. You're dreaming, of course. The administration spoon-feeds the board, who rubber stamps the fare of the day. Of course, the administration is also limited by the Feds, the State, and managed by work rule down to the micro level by the Teachers' union. No way a board member, even a concerned one, could actually find out the limit to their power, given the entrenched full-timers in the way. Even the "training seminar" for school board members here in MI is a company job. Even if you find you do have some power to change something, you'll find the budget constraints are as big as the regulatory. |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message t... "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: If you want your children to study ID, send them to sunday school or bible study. Don't expose my kids to that nonsense. scott Such wisdom. I hope you aren't a teacher. Semantically void comeback. Proper comeback. Agree with, I believe it's Fletis. Strange what we teach. We have to teach them about the Indian - excuse me "First Americans," which puzzles me, because they want to be considered "sovereign nations" - beliefs. We even take them to pow-wows. We can't teach the dominant belief system or take them to its festivals, though. Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their Bible? If they know both sides in a conflict, they can understand better its sources, arguments, and status. |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote: "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message t... "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: If you want your children to study ID, send them to sunday school or bible study. Don't expose my kids to that nonsense. scott Such wisdom. I hope you aren't a teacher. Semantically void comeback. Proper comeback. Agree with, I believe it's Fletis. Strange what we teach. We have to teach them about the Indian - excuse me "First Americans," which puzzles me, because they want to be considered "sovereign nations" - beliefs. We even take them to pow-wows. We can't teach the dominant belief system or take them to its festivals, though. Nonsense. Teaching ABOUT a religion is not the same as teaching a religion. It is the teaching ABOUT religion that the Bible thumpers dislike. Comparative religion courses are anathema to religious types. Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their Bible? You don't live around here, I'll bet (part of the Bible Belt). The Bible is often the only reading most of these kids do these days. |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
George (in ) said:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message | ... || IMO, the only way to fix most problems with school boards is to go || to the meetings, talk with stakeholders, and (if you're sure can || do a better job) run for election to the board yourself. | | You're dreaming, of course. The administration spoon-feeds the | board, who rubber stamps the fare of the day. Of course, the | administration is also limited by the Feds, the State, and managed | by work rule down to the micro level by the Teachers' union. | | No way a board member, even a concerned one, could actually find | out the limit to their power, given the entrenched full-timers in | the way. Even the "training seminar" for school board members here | in MI is a company job. Even if you find you do have some power to | change something, you'll find the budget constraints are as big as | the regulatory. Not dreaming - and had a very different experience in small towns in southern Minnesota. I went to the board meetings, visited classes, talked to administrators, teachers, other parents, kids - and substitute taught (math) when needed. I ran for election to the school board (and lost - but to a person for whom I had a great deal of respect). My experience is that a thoughtfully-engaged participant _can_ affect the way things play. Perhaps it depends on what it is that you're trying to accomplish and how you're going about it. My agenda was to keep what was working while making incremental improvements to those things that weren't working as well as I thought they should. I wasn't bashful about looking for resources outside the educational context. The newspaper was pleased to be fed information about exceptional teachers and students, for example; and most local business people were willing to help in whatever way they could if asked (and asked in the right way). I don't know about Michigan; but educating young people just wasn't a hard sell in Minnesota. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Charlie Self wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this. I've said all the way though this thread that existing science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful debate with people like the IDers rather than running from them. The very fact that we have never observed "something springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep questions about existing methods of science and how they might be improved. The problem with civility of discourse in this case is not with the scientists. It is the IDers who insist they are correct, without an iota of proof, and who get excessively forceful about it, insisting on equality with proven science. How many of the IDers have you personally read? I've just started, but I've not seen a single instance of what you describe so far. The behavior you describe is more likely something you will find in some school board meeting, not among the intellectuals within the ID movement. And - as I've said before - we can fix the school board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded education. How many do you have to read to understand that their insistence on teaching a pseudo-science is the center of their beings. I live in one of the most strongly religious areas in the U.S. (about 30 miles from a truly creative designer, Jerry Falwell, and not all that far from that other creative bull**** artist, Pat Roberston: we're immersed in this nonsense on a daily basis here). The school boards are what is important. Intellectuals do nothing more than create the storms that their True Believers direct at others. And intellectuals are often wrong. I don't want to discuss your Libertarian tax, or other, views. |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is estimated that current lifeforms only represent about 1% of all
species that have ever existed. So there are many examples of evolutionary dead ends, if by that you mean now extinct. Apparently the intelligent designer wasn't so good. Steve "Bruce Barnett" wrote in message ... writes: There is NO way to use ID to predict any results. I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be no evolutionary 'dead ends'. But there are evolutionary dead ends. e.g. Dodo birds. So does that mean the predictive ability of ID fails? I'll let Tim answer that. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce Barnett" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: Not necessarily. A prediction entails a predetermined end result, a hypothesis could entail anything. A scientific hypothesis IS a prediction. If the prediction fails, then the hypothesis is wrong or flawed. That's what I just said. More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. Scienctific reasoning is not a general term. That isn't what I said. It's the process we use examine what we see, try to explain them, and find out if the explanation is right or wrong. DO you believe everything you are told? No, of course not. You use reason to determine if what you are told is right or not. This is essential to each and every one of us. Scientific reasoning teaches us HOW to find out if something is true or false. Especially when we don't know the right answer, or have anyone to ask. That's what I said. Critical thinking is good. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
"justme" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! says... "Bruce Barnett" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: You can't predict anything with evolution. Sure you can. First of all, we can predict characteristics of layers of rocks. We can generaly predict the type of rocks found above and below each layer. (Timewise, as the Earth can move a lot). That predicts evolution? We can therefore classify layers to geological ages. Generally so. From this we can predict the types of fossils found in rocks. We know what sort of fossils will exist in the same layer. And with billions of fossills, we have lots of oportunities to test these prpedictions. Those are observations, not predictions. We also know that fossils of a certain category (i.e. horse like) will have certain characteristics. Are the legs flexible and rotatable? Are bones fused or unfused? How many toes does it have? How big in the brain? How big are the small frontal lobes? Are the teeth low crowned? How many incisors, canines, premolars and molars? Now suppose we find fossils that ar 20 million years old, ad compare them to horse-life fossiles that are 30 milllion years Your posts show a remarkable level of ignorance about even grade school science. Perhaps you should do a little reading before you spout any more nonsense. Assuming of course that you aren't so desperate for attention that even ridicule from your betters is a welcome gift. Let us know if you ever stray beyond the ridicule department. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Scott Lurndal" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: They should be given a better education about the process of science. More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. I see no reason to exclude the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. They are both equally [im]probable. That's insane. Einstein probably knew more about it than you and he believed in a ID. There's no reason to believe in your example. You're insane. I probably know more about Einstein than you do. At some times in his life he was an atheist at others, a theist, at times I would suppose he was agnostic. I didn't think you could defend your silly comparison. But I daresay at no time in his adult life would he ever have recommended ID be published in any scientific journal or taught in any science class. And you know this...how? |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
.... ...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ... Citation? |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Lurndal" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: "Scott Lurndal" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: They should be given a better education about the process of science. More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. I see no reason to exclude the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. They are both equally [im]probable. That's insane. Einstein probably knew more about it than you Church of FSM http://www.venganza.org/ and he believed in a ID. There's no reason to believe in your example. Actually Einstein did _not_ believe in ID, nor a designer. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views Where do they address that? Not believing in a personal god doesn't mean the same as not believing in a designer. http://as1.chem.nottingham.ac.uk/~Aaron/quotest.htm "The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." If you want your children to study ID, send them to sunday school or bible study. Don't expose my kids to that nonsense. scott Such wisdom. I hope you aren't a teacher. Semantically void comeback. To the contrary. It was clear, concise and to the point. You apparently don't have the gift of critical discernment. |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
.... Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why there are competing theories. But ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a theology-based attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion. .... .... More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. The scientific method, however, is not a general term at all. As soon as you introduce an omnipotent external force, you then do not have a scientific theory, you have a theological-based explanation that removes the scientific method from consideration. If one hypothesizes this external non-causal force, then there is no possibility of disproving any hypothesis, thus negating the cosmological principle. What is the final result of present evolutionary theory is yet to be seen, but it will not include ID. |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would just like to point out to Tim that science doesn't do anything,
scientists do. And to do something, he or she has to get funding by submitting a proposal to a funding agency. The proposal has to tell why the research should be done, and explain in detail how the investigation will be carried out. This requires explaining background and framing a hypothesis that will be investigated. If the proposal suggests a major development, such as overthrowing evolution by natural selection, funding agencies would be eager to support it. And when it is completed, showing that natural selection (the real subject of the thing) couldn't account for this or that, leading journals like Nature would publish it as a hot item. Complaining that these things won't happen doesn't make it so. The reason ID research isn't getting funded and published is because the required proposal, hypothesis, experimental approach, etc. don't make a good enough case. For the purpose of getting us discussing things on a common basis, I propose some definitions: Science is the search for a verifiable body of data established through a series of experimental investigations, empirical knowledge of phenomena that can be observed or repeated, and a set of techniques for investigating, through research, repeatable events using a systematic procedure known as the scientific method. Natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy study nature; social sciences such as economics and geography concern themselves with both the physical and the cultural; politics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology study human beings and society. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science. And A hypothesis (big poop in ancient Greek) is a proposed explanation for a poop. A scientific hypotheses must be poopable and based on previous poops or extensions to scientific theories . In early usage, a hypothesis was a clever idea or convenient mathematical approach that would simplify calculation, but did not necessarily have any reality at all. This is the sense in which Cardinal Bellarmine used the word when he warned Galileo away from treating the motion of the Earth as a reality. In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In the hypothetico-deductive method, a hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible that it be shown to be false, usually by observation. Note that if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional. Hypothesis' can be divided into two types: the propositions, which follow a causal order 'A causes B' or empirical generalizations, which are based on observerd regularities but don't stipulate what is the cause and effect, only stating that 'A is related to B'. The term hypothesis, was misused in the Riemann hypothesis, which should be properly called a conjecture. As an example, someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep, might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. It can be falsified by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example that it is a sheep, instead of a goat) and that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), the hypothesis is falsified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis And further Further explanation of a scientific theory In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data. Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations. Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric theory or model of Ptolemy. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory. As an exercise for the class, consider the case for ID research and report back where it falls short. Steve "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this. I've said all the way though this thread that existing science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful debate with people like the IDers rather than running from them. The very fact that we have never observed "something springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep questions about existing methods of science and how they might be improved. ID would then be a philosophic ocnstruct combining a scientific theory with somethign else that is not a cientific theory. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
.... "The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." .... But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it) that he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the basic underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle. That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic intervention. |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... "The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." ... But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it) that he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the basic underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle. That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic intervention. I don't agree. Alot of people seem to confuse it with a Judeo-Christian God. It doesn't exclude one but interpretations of how God interacts, if he does at all, is a different matter. Einstein didn't uphold any traditional religious view as far as I've seen but he does refer to it as "...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..." |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... ...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ... Citation? Yes, I did. ...."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..." |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why there are competing theories. But ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a theology-based attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion. ... ... More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. The scientific method, however, is not a general term at all. True. As soon as you introduce an omnipotent external force, you then do not have a scientific theory, you have a theological-based explanation that removes the scientific method from consideration. I don't agree. Considering a designer as a possible source doesn't exclude any scientific investigation. Many scientists do believe in God. If one hypothesizes this external non-causal force, then there is no possibility of disproving any hypothesis, thus negating the cosmological principle. What is the final result of present evolutionary theory is yet to be seen, but it will not include ID. Did God tell you that? |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... "The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." ... But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it) that he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the basic underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle. That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic intervention. I don't agree. Alot of people seem to confuse it with a Judeo-Christian God. It doesn't exclude one but interpretations of how God interacts, if he does at all, is a different matter. Einstein didn't uphold any traditional religious view as far as I've seen but he does refer to it as "...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..." You don't agree w/ what? Einstein was Jewish, therefore one must presume most of his thinking was strongly influenced by that tradition and background. His involvement w/ the establishment of Israel certainly would not contradict that hypothesis. How does any of what you wrote negate the thought of Einstein looking for underlying physical principles which are invariate over time and space? That is, in fact, what he spent his career looking for... |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... ...Einstein ... believed in a ID. ... Citation? Yes, I did. ..."which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..." As pointed out elsewhere, that's not the same thing. |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why there are competing theories. But ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a theology-based attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion. ... ... More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. The scientific method, however, is not a general term at all. True. As soon as you introduce an omnipotent external force, you then do not have a scientific theory, you have a theological-based explanation that removes the scientific method from consideration. I don't agree. Considering a designer as a possible source doesn't exclude any scientific investigation. See below... ...Many scientists do believe in God. Yes, but as reason for the philosphical questions, not as the removal of physical laws...again, see below. If one hypothesizes this external non-causal force, then there is no possibility of disproving any hypothesis, thus negating the cosmological principle. What is the final result of present evolutionary theory is yet to be seen, but it will not include ID. Did God tell you that? No, the application of the definition of scienctific thought. Once you introduce the supernatural, then, by definition, you no longer have a natural explanation (DOH!) and therefore, have removed that phenomenon from the realm of a scientific endeavor. |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
Morris, I'm sorry but that is much to rational for this thread.
Still Steve, haven't evolved yet "Morris Dovey" wrote in message ... Tim Daneliuk (in ) said: | Charlie Self wrote: | || Tim Daneliuk wrote: || ||| I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this. ||| I've said all the way though this thread that existing ||| science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful ||| debate with people like the IDers rather than running from ||| them. The very fact that we have never observed "something ||| springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the ||| Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep ||| questions about existing methods of science and how they ||| might be improved. || || The problem with civility of discourse in this case is not with the || scientists. It is the IDers who insist they are correct, without an || iota of proof, and who get excessively forceful about it, || insisting on equality with proven science. | | How many of the IDers have you personally read? I've just started, | but I've not seen a single instance of what you describe so far. | The behavior you describe is more likely something you will find | in some school board meeting, not among the intellectuals within | the ID movement. And - as I've said before - we can fix the school | board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded | education. Trying to make "intellectual" a dirty word? With all of its warts, our tax-funded educational system is one of the major underpinnings of a society that's been struggling (with a remarkable degree of success) since its inception to provide equal opportunity for all. My personal past experience with people who want to "fix the school board problem" has been that they (the fixers) don't even bother to attend the meetings. Rather, they whine loudly about what was decided and done "while they weren't looking". IMO, the only way to fix most problems with school boards is to go to the meetings, talk with stakeholders, and (if you're sure can do a better job) run for election to the board yourself. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still don't see what this has to do with George Bush drinking.
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Scott Lurndal" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: They should be given a better education about the process of science. More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. I see no reason to exclude the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. They are both equally [im]probable. That's insane. Einstein probably knew more about it than you and he believed in a ID. There's no reason to believe in your example. You're insane. I probably know more about Einstein than you do. At some times in his life he was an atheist at others, a theist, at times I would suppose he was agnostic. I didn't think you could defend your silly comparison. What silly comparison? You seem to be plucking things out of thin air. But I daresay at no time in his adult life would he ever have recommended ID be published in any scientific journal or taught in any science class. And you know this...how? Are you unclear on the meaning of "I daresay?" My opinion is based on reading (in translation) Eistein's own writings. Not all of them to be sure, but lots. -- FF |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
In a similiar vein, I haven't seen any scientists or educators beating down
the doors of churches claiming that biological evolution MUST be taught along with the story of creationism in Sunday school. It seems fair to expect those wishing to join the debate, ie, the "Intelligent Design" proponents, to provide some evidence that can be proven before they get a seat at the table. John Emmons "Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.com... Tim Daneliuk wrote: I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this. I've said all the way though this thread that existing science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful debate with people like the IDers rather than running from them. The very fact that we have never observed "something springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep questions about existing methods of science and how they might be improved. The problem with civility of discourse in this case is not with the scientists. It is the IDers who insist they are correct, without an iota of proof, and who get excessively forceful about it, insisting on equality with proven science. |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charlie,
Your description of the "bible belt" also applies to other areas of the country. IN my case, Southern California. I recall a class on the history of religion in the mediterranean area while I was in college. A publically funded university, which I'm sure will make Mr. Daneliuk's skin crawl... The class was taught by a former Baptist minister who had gone on to study Buddhism. Fascinating guy. It took less than a week for a well intentioned but stupid student to start refuting every thing he mentioned in the lectures with the refrain, "it doesn't say that in the bible..." This person disputed the very existence of other religions, claiming that any belief system other than christianity was simply wrong... I finally raised my hand and told her that I hadn't paid my tuition to hear what she thought. She left the class never to return after that. Getting back to the point I tried to make in my earlier post, the professor wasn't demanding that her church teach his beliefs, why do christians insist on having schools teach about theirs? John Emmons "Charlie Self" wrote in message ps.com... George wrote: "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message t... "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: If you want your children to study ID, send them to sunday school or bible study. Don't expose my kids to that nonsense. scott Such wisdom. I hope you aren't a teacher. Semantically void comeback. Proper comeback. Agree with, I believe it's Fletis. Strange what we teach. We have to teach them about the Indian - excuse me "First Americans," which puzzles me, because they want to be considered "sovereign nations" - beliefs. We even take them to pow-wows. We can't teach the dominant belief system or take them to its festivals, though. Nonsense. Teaching ABOUT a religion is not the same as teaching a religion. It is the teaching ABOUT religion that the Bible thumpers dislike. Comparative religion courses are anathema to religious types. Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their Bible? You don't live around here, I'll bet (part of the Bible Belt). The Bible is often the only reading most of these kids do these days. |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Huh? How would it be a wild guess? (And what would be the antecedant guess making this 'another' one?). The hypothesis follows straight from the observation that Jewish males have been circumcized in infancy for thousands of years, surely hundreds of generations. ...by human hands. Something a bit sharper I should hope. Regardless, forskins should have grown smaller and disappeared the same way that giraffe necks got longer, as each generation stretched its further, right? I don't know where you are going with foreskins but giraffes with longer necks were better able to survive in the ever changing environment. Not relevant. I said some tranmutational theories, not all. We know that gravity exists and we know some of it's properties well enough to call them laws but we don't know all there is to know about it, even though it is testable and observable. I don't see how anyone can presume any laws about an Intelligent Designer since he would beyond our scope of observation. Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner! ???? ... Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess. I don't agree. Well than what DOES separate one scientific theory from another if not testable hypotheses? That isn't what I disagreed with. Regardless, what DOES separate one scientific theory from another if not testable hypotheses? You frequently misrepresent my views. Science does include hypotheses and theories that aren't testable, i.e. parallel universes, cycling universes, steady state universes, etc. Two of the three are irrelevant to the issue of theory as they are not theories. A theory is more than just a notion or an idea. The Steady State Universe may be differentiated from the Big Bang Cosmology by a number of observables which is why one theory is now favored over the other. The other two are notions that will not rise to the level of theory unless one can suggest a testable hypothesis to differentiate from other Cosmologies. Some who work with those notions may use the word theory in reference to them but they do so coloqyuially, as many people, even scientists, will use the word 'experiment' coloquially not in refence to what is an experiment in the formal scientific sense. I doubt very much that you will find parallel universe or cycling universe theory published in scientific journals, and I saresay they should not be taught, as science, in the public schools. ... Albert Einstein ... Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated either for his religious views. Another diversion. Nonsense, check the subject line above. No one claimed that he even discussed it. Indeed, your introduction of Einstein into the discussion was obfuscation and diversion. I brought it back on subject. What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference? I don't think you even know what ID supporters want. I am quite clear the the people who are promoting ID want to use it as a means to inject religious teaching into the public schools. If you look hard enough you can probably find one or two ID advocates who do not, but the majority care not one whit about science, they care only about religion and their leaders care only about power. Not only can one do science with or without considering the possibility, indeed, the scince one does, in either case, will be the same. It should be that way. I didn't suggest otherwise. Why have a component of a scientific theory, when that component has no affect on that theory? ID has no effect on how we view the universe????? No, at issue is whether or not biology or any other science would be observably different with ID as compared to without. That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed, you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They follow a couple of paragraphs below. I answered the assertion. With a repetition of statement I showed to be false. No, you asserted it to be false. No, you asserted that "you can't predict anything with evolution". That's true and you seemed to agree. No it is false and your statement above is even more false, if that is possible. Perhaps incorrectly, I interpretted that to mean "You can't use any evolutionary theory to make any prediction" and then went on to point out how one could use specific evolutionary theories to make predictions, like the vanishg foreskin prediction Which I still don't get. How does a false assumption or prediction prove anything? How does asking a rhetorical question communicate anything? of some tranmutational theories, or predictions as to what may be found in the fossil record. An individual can predict (guess) about anything. Evolution doesn't make the prediction. You use the term like a religion. Pedantry, and bad pedantry at that. You are running from the issue. ... Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete. Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even observations consistant with tranmutation theory. Sure, how about the Cambrian Explosion? Lots of theories, no answers. All theories are answers. Only to the faithful. No, all theories are answers. The faithful choose among them wihout concern for hypothesis testing. A theory isn't an answer unless you accept it as an answer. That's a personal choice, not a law of science. Accepting or rejecting an answer doe not change the fact that it is an answer. All of the answers on a multiple choice test are answers, the mulitplicity notwithstanding. In the scientific method theory is the exploration of the logical consiequences of natural laws. You are free to use the word differently but if you do you are no longer talking about theories in the scientific sense. Theories are all answers to the question what would the world be like if these laws are true? ... Many are not testable, i.e. parallel universes, bubble universes, etc. yet are part of the scientific discussion. No, you confuse speculation with science. No, you confuse science with secular dogma. Science discusses many things, not all are proven or even provable as far as we know. In science, an idea does not rise to the level of a theory until it can be used to make a prediction. People who use language to communicate, rather than to obfuscate, understand that "This theory predicts" means "One may use this theory to predict". I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would promote a particular religious doctrine. Which one? Intelligent Design. That's a religion? Isn't a religion more specific? It is a particular religious doctrine. Well, please enlighten us to the doctrine. ID makes no claims other than the design has a designer. That is a religious claim. If you say that is the doctrine, then explain why "the design has no designer" isn't a religion. That is also a religious claim, or to be more precise, an atheist claim. Silence on the issue, advances neither claim. ... -- FF |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still don't see what this has to do with George Bush drinking. Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Scott Lurndal" "Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes: They should be given a better education about the process of science. More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility unless there are other motives. I see no reason to exclude the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. They are both equally [im]probable. That's insane. Einstein probably knew more about it than you and he believed in a ID. There's no reason to believe in your example. You're insane. I probably know more about Einstein than you do. At some times in his life he was an atheist at others, a theist, at times I would suppose he was agnostic. I didn't think you could defend your silly comparison. What silly comparison? You seem to be plucking things out of thin air. You seem to not be following the posts. Scott compared belief in an Intelligent Designer with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I daresay at no time in his adult life would he ever have recommended ID be published in any scientific journal or taught in any science class. And you know this...how? Are you unclear on the meaning of "I daresay?" No. My opinion is based on reading (in translation) Eistein's own writings. Not all of them to be sure, but lots. He saw design and refered to God a number of times (not in a personal sense though). My opinion would be that he thought God was the designer. |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Emmons" wrote in message ... Charlie, Your description of the "bible belt" also applies to other areas of the country. IN my case, Southern California. I recall a class on the history of religion in the mediterranean area while I was in college. A publically funded university, which I'm sure will make Mr. Daneliuk's skin crawl... The class was taught by a former Baptist minister who had gone on to study Buddhism. Fascinating guy. It took less than a week for a well intentioned but stupid student to start refuting every thing he mentioned in the lectures with the refrain, "it doesn't say that in the bible..." This person disputed the very existence of other religions, claiming that any belief system other than christianity was simply wrong... I finally raised my hand and told her that I hadn't paid my tuition to hear what she thought. She left the class never to return after that. Getting back to the point I tried to make in my earlier post, the professor wasn't demanding that her church teach his beliefs, why do christians insist on having schools teach about theirs? John Emmons Most of them don't. They only want fairness in education. Instead of only teaching that nothing exploded and everything happened and we crawled out of the mud that they would also mention that many scientist see evidence for design. I don't think you're much different than the Christian fundamentalist that you embarassed. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Fletis Humplebacker wrote: wrote: Two of the three are irrelevant to the issue of theory as they are not theories. A theory is more than just a notion or an idea. True, and if scientists say they see evidence for design they aren't just throwing out an unfounded idea. The Steady State Universe may be differentiated from the Big Bang Cosmology by a number of observables which is why one theory is now favored over the other. But you miss the point. The steady state universe was/is part of science. Einstein even fudged his numbers in order to fit the prevailing view at the time. The other two are notions that will not rise to the level of theory unless one can suggest a testable hypothesis to differentiate from other Cosmologies. Some who work with those notions may use the word theory in reference to them but they do so coloqyuially, as many people, even scientists, will use the word 'experiment' coloquially not in refence to what is an experiment in the formal scientific sense. I doubt very much that you will find parallel universe or cycling universe theory published in scientific journals, and I saresay they should not be taught, as science, in the public schools. Are you saying they are never mentioned or that you hope not? ... Albert Einstein ... Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated either for his religious views. Another diversion. Nonsense, check the subject line above. You erected a strawman. I don't know that he ever spoke on public education or what should be published. We certainly weren't discussing it. No one claimed that he even discussed it. Indeed, your introduction of Einstein into the discussion was obfuscation and diversion. I brought it back on subject. The fact that a noted scientist like Einstein saw evidence for design isn't relevent? I was right, you are having a conversation with yourself. That amounts to public masterbation. Whatever floats your boat. What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference? I don't think you even know what ID supporters want. I am quite clear the the people who are promoting ID want to use it as a means to inject religious teaching into the public schools. Then I was right. You don't know what they want. If you look hard enough you can probably find one or two ID advocates who do not, One or two? but the majority care not one whit about science, they care only about religion and their leaders care only about power. I think I see a pattern here. You're a bigot and it didn't take long for it to bubble to the surface. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well first off, you thinking that I'm not much different than the
fundamentalist is really of no concern. I believe what I believe, I know what I know. As for your "fairness" statement, there is nothing fair about the so called "intelligent design" campaign. It is religious fundamentalism and evangelism trying to force it's way into the arena of public education. The believers in the theory of evolution don't go pounding on the doors of chrurches, fundamentalists should refrain from doing so as well. Since you obviously have no way of knowing what "most" people of any belief want or don't want, I'll refrain from comment on that asinine statement. John Emmons "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ... "John Emmons" wrote in message ... Charlie, Your description of the "bible belt" also applies to other areas of the country. IN my case, Southern California. I recall a class on the history of religion in the mediterranean area while I was in college. A publically funded university, which I'm sure will make Mr. Daneliuk's skin crawl... The class was taught by a former Baptist minister who had gone on to study Buddhism. Fascinating guy. It took less than a week for a well intentioned but stupid student to start refuting every thing he mentioned in the lectures with the refrain, "it doesn't say that in the bible..." This person disputed the very existence of other religions, claiming that any belief system other than christianity was simply wrong... I finally raised my hand and told her that I hadn't paid my tuition to hear what she thought. She left the class never to return after that. Getting back to the point I tried to make in my earlier post, the professor wasn't demanding that her church teach his beliefs, why do christians insist on having schools teach about theirs? John Emmons Most of them don't. They only want fairness in education. Instead of only teaching that nothing exploded and everything happened and we crawled out of the mud that they would also mention that many scientist see evidence for design. I don't think you're much different than the Christian fundamentalist that you embarassed. |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charlie Self" wrote in message ps.com... Nonsense. Teaching ABOUT a religion is not the same as teaching a religion. It is the teaching ABOUT religion that the Bible thumpers dislike. You are their spokesman? Comparative religion courses are anathema to religious types. Now explain "anathema" without mentioning religion. Let them compare beliefs. In case you hadn't looked, they're more alike than different, in the end. Just like "multiculturalism" misses the point by emphasizing difference and ignoring similarity. Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their Bible? You don't live around here, I'll bet (part of the Bible Belt). The Bible is often the only reading most of these kids do these days. Good, then they'll only have to become more conversant with Greek mythology to major in English Literature. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Emmons wrote: ... Getting back to the point I tried to make in my earlier post, the professor wasn't demanding that her church teach his beliefs, why do christians insist on having schools teach about theirs? As I am sure you will realize one should not tar all christians with the same brush. Round about twenty years ago when the same people promoting ID today were suing the Louisiana school district in an effort to force the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" in the Public Schools the Catholic Church filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendant. Of course those were Catholics, not Christians. The problem is with a sort of 'cargo cult' christians, whom might also be called pseudo-christians or hippo-christians. Being oblivious to such subtlties as tenets of faith they simply follow the orders of their leaders who care not for science, government or religion but care only for power. -- FF |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message ... The newspaper was pleased to be fed information about exceptional teachers and students, for example; and most local business people were willing to help in whatever way they could if asked (and asked in the right way). I don't know about Michigan; but educating young people just wasn't a hard sell in Minnesota. We don't publish honor rolls any more. We appoint valedictorians, they don't earn it. Some places keep talking about abolishing any form of academic measurement. Education a hard sell? Not sure we'd recognize it if it happened. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - During disaster, Bush fiddled | Metalworking | |||
| OT - “I am George W. Bush and I approve this mess.” | Metalworking | |||
| OT - "George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior." | Metalworking | |||
| GW Bush | Metalworking | |||
| OT-I ain't No senator's son... | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
