John Emmons wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because they are forced to pay for those schools and are getting
ripped off if they then cannot have their desired content therein
represented. That's why public funding for schools is such an
abyss - it is impossible to have any single institution represent
the ideas and values of a society as diverse as ours fairly - there
isn't enough time in the day.

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

Charlie Self wrote:

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.


Fine - then quite complaining when tax payers who happen also to
be devoutly religious attempt to take over the school boards. You and
the other apologists for tax-funded education better rent a clue on this
one. Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process. An overwhelming majority of people do not accept
mechanical evolution as fact - they affirm some kind of intelligent
cause. Being in the majority doesn't make you right. But being in the
majority AND a taxpayer means you get to drive your views right into
the heart of the school system.

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

John Emmons wrote:

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.

Sunday School is not funded at the point of a government gun via
tax dollars. Big difference. The people attempting to change
their school systems are doing so because they are being forced to
fund something with which they do not agree and they are using their
democratic rights to make the changes they want. This is getting
traction because an overwhelming majority of people affirm some
kind of intelligent cause to the universe. This doesn't make them
right, of course, but this means that the *majority of taxpayers*
see it that way.



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.

"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible. The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.

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

George wrote:
"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?

Of course I am. It reads like that, right?

Comparative religion courses are anathema to religious types.

Now explain "anathema" without mentioning religion.

Lose your dictionary? Try something that is loathed, or shunned,
neither of which has to be religious. I loathe George Bush and shun
those with his hypocritical attitudes.


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.

Actually, most of them couldn't major in English without a looooooooong
running start and a new brain. They wouldn't know a Greek myth from a
Christian myth, but they're thoroughly conversant with redneckisms.

And yes, I know this is far too general, but you do seem to like
silly-assed generalities that have little meaning.

"John Emmons"

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.


Yes, that's what I meant.


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.


No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.


The believers in the theory of evolution don't go pounding on the doors of
chrurches,



Did you know that many (most?) Christians believe in evolution?


fundamentalists should refrain from doing so as well.


I don't share you belief that Intelligent Design is fundamentalism.


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.


I see. You know what most IDers want and I have no way to know.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"

....
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.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here. It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".

....

Did you know that many (most?) Christians believe in evolution?

Irrelevant whether they do or don't...

....

I don't share you belief that Intelligent Design is fundamentalism.

Whatever it is, it isn't science...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

John Emmons wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because they are forced to pay for those schools and are getting
ripped off if they then cannot have their desired content therein
represented. That's why public funding for schools is such an
abyss - it is impossible to have any single institution represent
the ideas and values of a society as diverse as ours fairly - there
isn't enough time in the day.

The point of public education is not to promote "fairness", it's to
provide a education of "readin', writin' 'n 'rithmetic" to the unwashed
masses in an attempt to have sufficiently broad literacy that the
concept of the republic can survive. Unfortunately, both sides in this
debate have conspired to remove much of that from our schools.

On the ID side, attempting to force it in as a science is simply
misguided by the uninformed who truly do believe there is a scientific
basis for it and that there is an "argument" -- they're simply
misinformed -- or a flanking movement by those who lost out in the
creationism argument and see it as a way to still win by changing
tactics.

OTOH, those on the extreme end of the ACLU-freaks who attempt to remove
absolutely every reference to anything they connote as even remotely
connected to religon are as much of demogogues on the other end as the
most fervent Falwell-ite.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

You (Mr Humplebacker) wrote "I didn't think you could defend your silly
comparison." in reply to my (FF's) article, not in reply to
Scotts article. Hence the logical anteedant for your (Mr
Humplebacker's)
use of 'you' is FF.



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.

Almost no one objects to everyone, including Einstein, having
such metaphysical beliefs. At issue is incorporating metaphysical
beliefs into science.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
....
...Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process.

Up to here, you're ok...

... Being in the majority doesn't make you right.

And here...

...But being in the majority AND a taxpayer means you get to drive your views right into the heart of the school system.

But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

....
"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.

Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.

...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.

AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

On 06 Oct 2005 15:25:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Sunday School is not funded at the point of a government gun via
tax dollars. Big difference. The people attempting to change
their school systems are doing so because they are being forced to
fund something with which they do not agree and they are using their
democratic rights to make the changes they want. This is getting
traction because an overwhelming majority of people affirm some
kind of intelligent cause to the universe. This doesn't make them
right, of course, but this means that the *majority of taxpayers*
see it that way.

When churches start paying taxes I'll agree that they are not funded
via tax dollars. Any organization that takes in money and doesn't pay
taxes on that money partially exists on the backs of taxpayers. You
want fairness in public schools then someone somewhere is going to
take some private school to court for not teaching Satanism as an
alternative to Christ. Indeed, add ID to public schools and someone,
somewhere will sue to have astrology added to the scientific list of
courses. Indeed, there is no difference between the basis of ID and
astrology, both are bunk science, indeed, no science at all....

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"

...
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.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.


Fair 'nuff.


Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here.


I was talking about the education of science, not science itself.


It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".


Then you misinterpreted the viewpoint. When you teach that we
crawled out of the mud it isn't science either. Many people want
their tax monies spent with some consideration to them instead
of just a biased secular view. That would be fair to the unbiased mind.



Did you know that many (most?) Christians believe in evolution?

Irrelevant whether they do or don't...


It was relevent to John's comment about evolutionists knocking
on church doors.


I don't share you belief that Intelligent Design is fundamentalism.

Whatever it is, it isn't science...


Science is the study. To exclude ID (unfairly) when many scientists
do see evidence of it isn't science either. But as you may well know
science isn't limited to what has been proven categorically.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



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.


Almost no one objects to everyone, including Einstein, having
such metaphysical beliefs. At issue is incorporating metaphysical
beliefs into science.


No, that isn't the issue. My argument has been on the biased
educational system, not whether we should be allowed to have
personal beliefs or demanding that God is declared real by the
scientific community.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


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.

Almost no one objects to everyone, including Einstein, having
such metaphysical beliefs. At issue is incorporating metaphysical
beliefs into science.

No, that isn't the issue. My argument has been on the biased
educational system, not whether we should be allowed to have
personal beliefs or demanding that God is declared real by the
scientific community.

It's only "biased" in your belief system---but as noted elsewhere, that
it isn't "fair" isn't the proper question. The proper question is
whether the science curriculum is the best science known at the time _to
science_. Anything less is a disservice to the students.

On 06 Oct 2005 15:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

John Emmons wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because they are forced to pay for those schools and are getting
ripped off if they then cannot have their desired content therein
represented. That's why public funding for schools is such an
abyss - it is impossible to have any single institution represent
the ideas and values of a society as diverse as ours fairly - there
isn't enough time in the day.

Howdy,

You seem to suggest above that those who do not choose to
participate in the activities of religious institutions do
not have to pay for the activities of those institutions.

Does not the tax exempt status of those institutions point
to the opposite conclusion?

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:35:59 -0400, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You tone and intensity is religious here not inquisitive...

HIS tone is religious????

Thanks, Tim - I needed a good laugh.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:29:50 -0400, George wrote:

Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their
Bible?

Let's see. Do you mean the bible before Jerome, or the bible after Jerome
but before Luther, or the bible after Luther?

I've read them all. But then I've read Roman and Greek mythology as well.

I especially liked the one book (name escapes me) that Jerome threw out
which talked about Jesus as a child. Says that at one point he turned his
playmates to stone because they wouldn't play nice :-).

You keep your myths, I'll keep mine :-).

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"

...
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.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

Fair 'nuff.

Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here.

I was talking about the education of science, not science itself.

It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".

Then you misinterpreted the viewpoint. When you teach that we
crawled out of the mud it isn't science either. Many people want
their tax monies spent with some consideration to them instead
of just a biased secular view. That would be fair to the unbiased mind.

What is taught is the best _scientific_ understanding of how things
happened. You're again letting your theology get in the way of the
issue. If you want a theological being or basis for the non-scientific
portion, that's fine. The point is, that is theology and/or philosophy,
not science.

....
It was relevent to John's comment about evolutionists knocking
on church doors.

Not really. The point was only on actions, not numbers.


Science is the study. To exclude ID (unfairly) when many scientists
do see evidence of it isn't science either. But as you may well know
science isn't limited to what has been proven categorically.

Back to this specious "fair" argument again...we dealt w/ that already.


The point is that once you bring in this extra-terristrial, there is no
science left--it's now magic. Maybe in the end, science will admit
defeat in understanding (I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose) and
the only rational explanation will turn out to be the supernatural. If
so, it bodes ill for our ability to progress much further in the
biological sciences as everything we think we understand will have been
shown to have been just a fluke of the point in time and point of
reference which can change at any time when this external power decides
to change the ground rules. As you see, that doesn't make any sense,
but it is the logical conclusion of demanding something other than
natural processes as what science deals with.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:45:46 +0000, John Emmons wrote:

The believers in the theory of evolution don't go pounding on the doors of
chrurches, fundamentalists should refrain from doing so as well.

That's a thought - maybe we "evolutionists" should ask for equal time in
the pulpits :-).

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:03:33 -0700, LARRY BLANCHARD wrote:

But I note that none of the religious types here have answered the "Who
created the creator?" question. Guess them turtles'll just have to keep
doing the heavy lifting :-).

And they still haven't :-).

"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". " --FF

You've gone back and forth about predictive power and the like a bit in
this thread. It is ironic to bring up with respect to "evolution"
because that term has been applied to predict everything and given the
systematic thought typical to science that means it predicts nothing in
an unfalsifiable way. It is like the old scientific notion of
phlogiston, the hypothesizing is so adaptive that it has no predictive
power. For example, if some organisms have long necks then it is said
that they gradually developed a different bone structure as well as the
circulation system, type of heart and so on necessary, by random
mutations acted on by natural selection. If some organisms do not have
long necks then it is said that they gradually developed their type of
neck in the same way. What prediction about adaptations was actually
based on the "law" of natural selection and how can it be falsified?
Another example, gender is said to have originated by the same laws and
processes and men are said to be heterosexual as the result. Is that a
prediction? It cannot be, as the opposite is also said to result from
the same processes and laws because they are said to explain men being
gay too. The question seems to be, what adaptations or patterns in
Nature can be found empirically that would actually falsify Darwinism
according to Darwinists? It is like the phogiston theorists, there is
always another hypothesis as the "theory"/hypothesizing just goes on to
support the paradigm.

Compare Darwinism to hard science, which evolutionists tend to try to
merge into and associate their myths with. For instance, if Darwinism
is "just like" physics and gravity (ironic, since the more radical
Darwinian biologists tend to attack physicists now) then what is the
equation that represents the main tenet of Darwinism, i.e. "natural
selection"? Is it like gravity? Why didn't the hard scientists of
his day tend to accept Darwin's theory? How have equations making use
of the law of "natural selection" been used to track the adaptations of
organisms, as certainly as one would track the trajectory of an object
using physics? What adaptations have been predicted using the equation
and then verified empirically, time and again? Proponents of ID are
not the people arguing that the State must support ID in the name of
education or that all of science and perhaps Western civilization too
will just crumble away if their opponents are allowed a voice. It is
the Darwinists making specious and absurd claims about what is
"scientific" and "just like the theory of gravity" which they cannot
back up on the least.

"Theories are all answers to the question what would the world
be like if these laws are true?"

Well, what would the world be like if "natural selection" were true?
Is natural selection falsified by unnatural selections, naturally
enough? Or is it falsified by natural deselections? How does Nature
make a "selection" for intelligence, anyway? Are you selecting the
text that you write here or should it be reduced to nothing more than
an artifact of the biochemical state of your brain in a moment? It
would seem that you are arguing against the capacity to study an
artifact of the work of intelligence, typically known by its use of
symbols and signs of design to encode information.

This is not a rhetorical question. What is it that you think that
Darwinian "random" mutation and a supposed law of natural selection
predict?

"Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary
theory-the concept of the continuity of nature. . . and the belief
that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random
process-have been validated by one single empirical discovery or
scientific advance since 1859." --Michael Denton
(Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
By Thomas Woodward :47)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/05/zingers.html

--MN

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:03:33 -0700, LARRY BLANCHARD wrote:


But I note that none of the religious types here have answered the "Who
created the creator?" question. Guess them turtles'll just have to keep
doing the heavy lifting :-).


And they still haven't :-).

A possible answer via induction was proposed in my first post on the
matter in this thread under "A Thought Experiment."

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

John Emmons wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because they are forced to pay for those schools and are getting
ripped off if they then cannot have their desired content therein
represented. That's why public funding for schools is such an
abyss - it is impossible to have any single institution represent
the ideas and values of a society as diverse as ours fairly - there
isn't enough time in the day.


The point of public education is not to promote "fairness", it's to
provide a education of "readin', writin' 'n 'rithmetic" to the unwashed
masses in an attempt to have sufficiently broad literacy that the
concept of the republic can survive. Unfortunately, both sides in this
debate have conspired to remove much of that from our schools.

Tragic considering what a lousy job they do on the basics.


On the ID side, attempting to force it in as a science is simply
misguided by the uninformed who truly do believe there is a scientific
basis for it and that there is an "argument" -- they're simply
misinformed -- or a flanking movement by those who lost out in the
creationism argument and see it as a way to still win by changing
tactics.

Would you be OK with ID if it were taught as a possible augmentation
to the *philsosophy* of science rather than science proper?


OTOH, those on the extreme end of the ACLU-freaks who attempt to remove
absolutely every reference to anything they connote as even remotely
connected to religon are as much of demogogues on the other end as the
most fervent Falwell-ite.

The ACLU has become a PR firm for the Wingnut Left. It abandoned
any pretense of principle long ago.


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

Kenneth wrote:

On 06 Oct 2005 15:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


John Emmons wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because they are forced to pay for those schools and are getting
ripped off if they then cannot have their desired content therein
represented. That's why public funding for schools is such an
abyss - it is impossible to have any single institution represent
the ideas and values of a society as diverse as ours fairly - there
isn't enough time in the day.


Howdy,

You seem to suggest above that those who do not choose to
participate in the activities of religious institutions do
not have to pay for the activities of those institutions.

Does not the tax exempt status of those institutions point
to the opposite conclusion?

You betcha, and I oppose that too with same vigor I do public
schooling...


All the best,


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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

...Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process.


Up to here, you're ok...


... Being in the majority doesn't make you right.


And here...


...But being in the majority AND a taxpayer means you get to drive your views right into the heart of the school system.


But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.


...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.

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

On 06 Oct 2005 15:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process. An overwhelming majority of people do not accept
mechanical evolution as fact - they affirm some kind of intelligent
cause.

Howdy,

And would you include religious institutions in that group,
that is, those that "by their very nature are open to a
democratic governance process" because of their tax-exempt
status?

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

....
Would you be OK with ID if it were taught as a possible augmentation
to the *philsosophy* of science rather than science proper?

Depends on what you then meant by ID...it would have to quit pretending
to be science-based and admit it is simply discussing something about
what is outside the realm of science--but then, there are many schools
of philosophy dealing w/ those issues already. What would distinguish
it as ID vis a vis some other?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

...Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process.


Up to here, you're ok...


... Being in the majority doesn't make you right.


And here...


...But being in the majority AND a taxpayer means you get to drive your views right into the heart of the school system.


But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.

There you're simply wrong. The "science" which the ID folks bring to
bear is, for the most part, simply not accurate and what few facts they
do get right are used in their own context for their own purposes.

The "prudent stewardship" argument implies that the best service is
provided the student by teaching what is best known at the time. As
I've noted elsewhere, all science changes--it's the nature of science.
What is now known in high energy physics now is grossly altered from
that I learned in graduate school only 20 years or so ago...much of what
we now know in the biological sciences was completely unknown then.
Same is true in the knowledge of origins. There is where the
controversy and excitment lie, not in some mumbo-jumbo explanation that
all is imponderable.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.


...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.


AHA! Thus "the slip"...at least you don't need to be reprogrammed.

You seem to have made a pretty good representation that your leanings
tend to support bringing the ID "argument" into the classroom...

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



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.

Almost no one objects to everyone, including Einstein, having
such metaphysical beliefs. At issue is incorporating metaphysical
beliefs into science.

No, that isn't the issue. My argument has been on the biased
educational system, not whether we should be allowed to have
personal beliefs or demanding that God is declared real by the
scientific community.


It's only "biased" in your belief system---but as noted elsewhere, that
it isn't "fair" isn't the proper question.


It is biased as I noted earlier. Science classes do teach some
matters of faith. Secular faith, i.e. life and the universe developed
on it's own, we just don't know how yet.


The proper question is
whether the science curriculum is the best science known at the time _to
science_. Anything less is a disservice to the students.


Yes, that was my point.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

...

But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.

Well since you didn't write that ID is entitled totraction within
the scientific 'belief system' it sure looks like you recognize
ID as a non-science.

I hope that is as you indended.

--

FF

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"


...

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.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

Fair 'nuff.


Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here.

I was talking about the education of science, not science itself.


It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".

Then you misinterpreted the viewpoint. When you teach that we
crawled out of the mud it isn't science either. Many people want
their tax monies spent with some consideration to them instead
of just a biased secular view. That would be fair to the unbiased mind.


What is taught is the best _scientific_ understanding of how things
happened.


That's not true. Many errors are found in school textbooks,
especially in the science field. Students often learn what the teacher
learned.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=17966
A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001
found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85
percent of the students in the country.


You're again letting your theology get in the way of the
issue. If you want a theological being or basis for the non-scientific
portion, that's fine. The point is, that is theology and/or philosophy,
not science.


It isn't quite that simple. If you teach kids that there must be some kind
of natural answer to life and the universe, we just don't know it yet,
you are tilting the table, offering skewed reasoning and doing them a
disservice. The matter of origins will and does naturally come up in
science classes, saying that many leading scientists see evidence
of intelligent design and many don't isn't preaching theology.



It was relevent to John's comment about evolutionists knocking
on church doors.


Not really. The point was only on actions, not numbers.


Yes, really. The assumption he made was a common error in
that one either believes in science (whatever that means) or
they embrace religion but they can't do both.



Science is the study. To exclude ID (unfairly) when many scientists
do see evidence of it isn't science either. But as you may well know
science isn't limited to what has been proven categorically.


Back to this specious "fair" argument again...we dealt w/ that already.



No, you tried to dismiss it.


The point is that once you bring in this extra-terristrial, there is no
science left--it's now magic.


There doesn't need to be a conflict between an intelligent designer
and science. I think secularists are overreacting.


Maybe in the end, science will admit
defeat in understanding (I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose) and
the only rational explanation will turn out to be the supernatural. If
so, it bodes ill for our ability to progress much further in the
biological sciences as everything we think we understand will have been
shown to have been just a fluke of the point in time and point of
reference which can change at any time when this external power decides
to change the ground rules. As you see, that doesn't make any sense,
but it is the logical conclusion of demanding something other than
natural processes as what science deals with.


I don't see any logic in that statement. Scientists do change prevailing
views from time to time as more is learned. How that excludes an
external power or suggests that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power escapes me.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Would you be OK with ID if it were taught as a possible augmentation
to the *philsosophy* of science rather than science proper?


Depends on what you then meant by ID...it would have to quit pretending
to be science-based and admit it is simply discussing something about
what is outside the realm of science--but then, there are many schools
of philosophy dealing w/ those issues already. What would distinguish
it as ID vis a vis some other?

Because it uses existing science as a feedback mechanism to propose
a modification to the current first propositions of science.

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...


...Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process.


Up to here, you're ok...



... Being in the majority doesn't make you right.


And here...



...But being in the majority AND a taxpayer means you get to drive your views right into the heart of the school system.


But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.


There you're simply wrong. The "science" which the ID folks bring to
bear is, for the most part, simply not accurate and what few facts they
do get right are used in their own context for their own purposes.

The "prudent stewardship" argument implies that the best service is
provided the student by teaching what is best known at the time. As
I've noted elsewhere, all science changes--it's the nature of science.
What is now known in high energy physics now is grossly altered from
that I learned in graduate school only 20 years or so ago...much of what
we now know in the biological sciences was completely unknown then.
Same is true in the knowledge of origins. There is where the
controversy and excitment lie, not in some mumbo-jumbo explanation that
all is imponderable.

You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.

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

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

...

But here you've missed the boat entirely. Being a taxpayer and wrong
doesn't connote anything more than being a taxpayer. There is still a
responsibility to provide correct education to the student--that's under
the section of oaths for public officials that deals w/ prudent
stewardship of public monies. Wasting such public funds on
pseudo-science is not such stewardship.

The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.


Well since you didn't write that ID is entitled totraction within
the scientific 'belief system' it sure looks like you recognize
ID as a non-science.

I hope that is as you indended.


What I should have said is: "Science as currently constituted with
its present first propositions."

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

Kenneth wrote:

On 06 Oct 2005 15:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Tax funded institutions, by their very nature, are open to a democractic
governance process. An overwhelming majority of people do not accept
mechanical evolution as fact - they affirm some kind of intelligent
cause.


Howdy,

And would you include religious institutions in that group,
that is, those that "by their very nature are open to a
democratic governance process" because of their tax-exempt
status?

All the best,

Yes - Religious groups should NOT be granted tax exempt status.
Neither should charities or anyone else for that matter. This
is the only way to keep indirect government subsidies from
opening the door for government control. Note that SCOTUS
ruled in the exact opposite direction regarding religions
arguing that if religion was tax, this opened the door for
government control of religion. I disagree. So long as
taxation is not "targeted" by demographic in *any* way -
everyone pays the exact same rate, no exceptions - there is
no way for government to tinker much using the tax code. Of
course that isn't what we have today in the West. We have
taxation systems designed to allow the Few to rule the Many
and dictate social outcomes ... like just what can and cannot
be taught in public schools.

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...


"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.



...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.



AHA! Thus "the slip"...at least you don't need to be reprogrammed.

You seem to have made a pretty good representation that your leanings
tend to support bringing the ID "argument" into the classroom...

I have and I do. But it's not because I accept the claims of ID
prima facia. It's because I think ID's challenge to the philosophy
of science and its first propositions of knowlege are worth
showing to students. Durable science will not be threatened by doing so.

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:
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.


But he spoke on the subject. We don't need to guess.


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...


I never suggested otherwise. Where do you get the science or god
dichotomy? My purpose in bringing up Einstein was that it need not
be an either or scenario.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
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.

I don't know who pointed it out but they were wrong.
I don't know how you can spin his words to mean anything but.