Duane Bozarth wrote:
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.


Who said anything about any removal?


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.


It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.

In article , "Fletis
Humplebacker" ! says...

"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.


When people are beneath contempt, ridicule is about all that's left.

Steve Peterson wrote:

Science*is*the*search*for*a*verifiable*body*of*dat a*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.

Well said. As was the rest of your post.

--
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.

But in this country, the minority has rights as well. And as long as the ID
folks are really pushing religion in disguise (and that is what the great
majority of them are doing), they have no right to foist their religion on
others.

If you don't believe me (and I'm sure you don't), find me an atheist who
supports ID.

--
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
they do so out of faith, not science.

Once again, the only rational answer to where the universe came from is "I
don't know".

But once it did exist, evolution seems to account quite well for the
diversity of species present and extinct. Our increasing knowledge of DNA
only reinforces it.

So evolution should be taught in schools - where the universe came from
should not.

--
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes:

We can predict many of the characterists of that fossil.


You can predict that similar fossils have similar characteristics?
Don't go too far out on the limb.

Sure. Look at the evolution of various families.
There are common traits within a family, and
at different periods, some traits become more established.

As I said - the teeth, height, bone structure, feet, skull, mandible -
all have certain characteristics.

Tell a paeoltologist you found a "horse-like fossil" from 25 million
years ago, and he can tell you what characterists is should have.

For instance, if we have a 3-toed horse and a one-toed horse,
we expect to find a horse with the outer toes smaller as paprt
of the transition. And that is what happened.



But was it formally a bird or mudskimmer?

Are you looking for a half-horse half-cow creature?
There would be no separation of fossils by layer. But fossils
ARE separated by layer, in a predictable manner.


Different species at different times doesn't prove evolution.

We have evidence of evolution without fossil evidence, as it has
occured during our lifetime. So we have proof ignoring fossils.

The fossils just give us 1 billion more examples of proving it.


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

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
news
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 :-).

If they're supported with tax money, sure.

Personally, I think the "depraved on account of he's deprived" theory that
dominates social spending is a crock, too, but I can't find anyone inside
the establishment willing to say there's really such a thing as a bad boy,
because the system would crush them.

What would Lysenko say about our theory of social engineering?

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
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?

Doesn't qualify as science, in my opinion, but purely as philosophy.
Important to give perspective and historical background in a science class,
but when the kids on either side of the battle of narrow minds would get
cranked up, I used to return to the idea that science only answers how, not
why.

How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a scientist_, by
the way. S/he should not question faith any more than someone of faith
should question science.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.


Narrow definitions are "learning by rote." A _teacher_ would mention the
Jewish custom, relate it to "ostracism" and maybe even "shunning" or cliques
in school. In short, a teacher would not be one-dimensional . Nor, of
course, would they add their gratuitous and bigoted opinion.

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.


There's an example of _your_ narrow, biased non-think. Knowledge has
intrinsic value. It is used to acquire and interpret other knowledge, which
can then hopefully lead to understanding. The broader the base, the
greater the potential height, just as in building a physical structure.

You're really no better than the "fundamentalists" you despise when you
reject others' interpretations with prejudice and pejorative. No wonder we
have so many undereducated kids when we have people who say you don't need
to know this, and further, that anyone who says you do is to be loathed and
shunned. Have a little respect for something broader than your politics, or
are you afraid that if others are exposed to the things you loathe, they may
chose them instead?

I'll suggest that the business of "generalities" is only "silly" to someone
whose mind is closed. It's on the basis of specifics that Darwin and
Wallace generalized - and evolved a theory of evolution. That theory is
continually modified by using the generalities to explain specifics.

Amazing.

"FUll Citizen" wrote in message
...
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 feel the same way about PBS, NAACP, NOW, ... Habitat for Humanity?

Or only institutions which don't reflect your opinion?

George (in ) said:

| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
| than someone of faith should question science.

I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a scientist
should question *everything* and that *everyone* should question
science.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

George wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

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?


Doesn't qualify as science, in my opinion, but purely as philosophy.
Important to give perspective and historical background in a science class,
but when the kids on either side of the battle of narrow minds would get
cranked up, I used to return to the idea that science only answers how, not
why.

How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a scientist_, by
the way. S/he should not question faith any more than someone of faith
should question science.



Both science and faith ought to be *continuously* questioned and not just by
their respective High Priests.

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

You want to include ID as sciene here's the process you must follow.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded
as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis,
model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the
hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

(This particular summary of the scientific method found at
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html)


Now, for starters, please give me the experimental tests you're going
to use to test your hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Renata

Speaking of the educational system (and without reading the ENTIRE
thread)...

My theory is that ole Fred went to schools that had a pretty good
foundation in science, whereas ole Fletis probably didn't.

You want your kids to learn about God in school, send them to a
private religious institution. Really.

Part of my basis for these statements is my background - went to
Catholic school for 12 years (horrors! ;-) We learned science kinda
stuff in the vaious science classes (you know, chemistry, physics,
biology, etc.). Then, the idea of an intelligent designer as a
possible explanation for the wonders and origins of the universe was
given in RELIGION class. 'Cause, you can't TEST the idea of ID using
the scientific method (a kinda fundamental requirement of SCIENCE).

Renata

[Great. My first (& 2nd) post coming back to the ole rec is about
religion. I'm sure the next will be politics ;-]



On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:18:24 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


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.

While the origin of the universe may matter to science, ID as the
explanation fails to follow the scientific method and thus, fails to
be in the realm science. (simply put)

Renata

On 06 Oct 2005 03:35:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I agree, and I further stipulate that a test such as you
describe may well not exist. However, the issue *still*
matters (to science).
-snip-

What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?

'Course, the way things are going, all they're gonna be needing is
proper diction of "you wan' fries wif that"?

Renata

On 06 Oct 2005 04:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
-snip-
we can fix the school
board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded education.

Fixed your statement...
R

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

United States citizens

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.

Not really, if you think about it. After all, a vast majority of the
citizens were all in favor of slavery, against equal rights, etc.
It's not really a complete "majority rules" kinda system. Just may
take time to set things right.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 07:38:07 -0400, "George" George@least
wrote:

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

If they're supported with tax money, sure.

Howdy,

As I mentioned somewhere else, they are. It's called "tax
exempt status" but, of course, that just means that they are
supported with tax money without the necessity of
contributing to it.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

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

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


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.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal. This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.

all means that scientific hypotheses are open-ended, that
they haven't been "proven" in the vernacular sense. Here's where the
ignorant get confused. While all scientific hypotheses are
formally provisional, science does indeed _disprove_ with certainty.
Scientific theories are those hypotheses which have withstood many
rigorous experiments. QED is an amazingly accurate theory. The ignorant

Inter-species evolution is one such "scientific theory." Please cite
the "rigorous experiments" that justify it. Hint: You can't because
this is a theory that is based on secondary evidence and induction.
Direct experiment is impossible because of the timeframes involved.
This means that this theory is *weaker* than one where direct experimental
evidence exists and thus is more open to criticism.

aren't marching on Washington to have Aristotle's notions of light taught
in the classroom, though. Hmm. Science is not a belief system. Science is
common sense, formalized.

Science is most assuredly a belief system. It has unprovable starting
propositions, a teleology, an epistemology, and all the rest that go
with a system of belief. It's sole justification is *utilitarian* -
It does useful things for us. But your attempt to elevate it as
a somehow *innately better* system than any other belief system
is absurd.


Superstition, on the other hand, is a bunch of Just So stories,
untestable, unreliable, unnecessary.
Science, indeed all rational thought, is hard. Superstition is easy.

Your philosophical naivete' is astonishing. You *believe* in Reason
though you cannot demonstrate anything more than its utility - certainly
not its sufficiency. You believe that there is no intelligent
action behind the actions of the physical world you observe. This is a
superstition no different than the inverse argument - neither is
ultimately demonstrable or falsifiable. *All* thought is hard.
Presuming reason-empiricism to be innately better than all other
forms of thinking is foolish and presumptuous.


The real issue is that the ignoramuses want to force everyone to
not-think, too. Don't fall into their trap of debating reality vs
creationism. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is

Evolution is a *theory* some aspects of which are far more likely than others.
But, sadly, like a depressing number of other people I've met you
choose to *believe* it with religious fervor and describe anyone who
disagrees with you as an "ignoramus".

one process whereby evolution occurs. Creationists are willfully ignorant
fools. That's not an ad hominem argument, that's a fact.

This is indeed ad hominem and the sign of a debater terrified that
their intellectual house-of-cards will be exposed for the fraud that
it is. Pleople who cling to their position screaming that everyone
who disagrees with it is an idiot are called "religious fundamentalists",
and you are every bit that ...


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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
....
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.

Precisely...and you're proposing to teach that your side does
know--which it doesn't and doesn't have scientific evidence to support
the argument that it does. Ergo, it is not science and should
therefore, not be taught as science.

The question of what and where religion should be taught is a totally
separate issue as well as is philosophy.

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.

But you apparently want to force teach a curriculum that isn't the best
science we presently know in order to promote a particular
non-scientific philosophical bent.

Renata wrote:

What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?

Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren. These,
and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents* not a
meddlesome program of public theft and wealth redistribution. Government
as an instrument of education is analogous to having Michael Jackson run
a day-camp for 12 year old boys.



'Course, the way things are going, all they're gonna be needing is
proper diction of "you wan' fries wif that"?

That's, in part, because the highly-vaunted public education system has
turned into a political madrassas to indoctrinate its victims, er, I
mean students. Public education has become an enabler for irresponsible
parents, incompetent teachers, and indulged children. There is an old,
and very true, saying: If you want less of something, tax it. If you
want more if something, subsidize it. By that measure, we are subsidizing
irresponsibility, incompetence, and laziness and the results are all
around us.



Renata

On 06 Oct 2005 04:15:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
-snip-

we can fix the school
board problem by (very properly) getting rid of tax-funded education.




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

Renata wrote:

While the origin of the universe may matter to science, ID as the
explanation fails to follow the scientific method and thus, fails to
be in the realm science. (simply put)

Go back and read the rest of the thread. ID fails only to follow
the scope of science *as currently defined*. ID is trying to
get traction (in part) by arguing that the first propositions
of science are in incorrect (i.e. philosophical materialism).


Renata

On 06 Oct 2005 03:35:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


I agree, and I further stipulate that a test such as you
describe may well not exist. However, the issue *still*
matters (to science).

-snip-


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

This thread has kink of gotten stuck on just one thing, when there are quite
a few improvements that could be made to the curriculum. Here is one, no
doubt partial, list:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...3000871_2.html

for example:

Academic Communications 191: An information delivery module designed to
disseminate linguistic interaction experience to assist Carbon Based Life
Forms (CBLFs) in transactionalizing with other CBLFs, without utilizing
affirmative/pejorative value judgments. (John Crowley, Annandale)

This one could really help here.

Steve

"Renata" wrote in message
...
You want to include ID as sciene here's the process you must follow.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded
as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis,
model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the
hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

(This particular summary of the scientific method found at
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html)


Now, for starters, please give me the experimental tests you're going
to use to test your hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Renata

Welcome back, Renata. Missed you.

"Renata" wrote in message
...
Speaking of the educational system (and without reading the ENTIRE
thread)...

My theory is that ole Fred went to schools that had a pretty good
foundation in science, whereas ole Fletis probably didn't.

You want your kids to learn about God in school, send them to a
private religious institution. Really.

Part of my basis for these statements is my background - went to
Catholic school for 12 years (horrors! ;-) We learned science kinda
stuff in the vaious science classes (you know, chemistry, physics,
biology, etc.). Then, the idea of an intelligent designer as a
possible explanation for the wonders and origins of the universe was
given in RELIGION class. 'Cause, you can't TEST the idea of ID using
the scientific method (a kinda fundamental requirement of SCIENCE).

Renata

[Great. My first (& 2nd) post coming back to the ole rec is about
religion. I'm sure the next will be politics ;-]



On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:18:24 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


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.

George (in ) said:

| We don't publish honor rolls any more.

That's one choice. Another is to make certain that the kids receive
the recognition they've worked so hard to deserve. Here in Iowa, young
people get that recognition in print and on TV - and not just for
academics. Those with non-academic accomplishments are also given
public praise and recognition.

Recognition is one of the major facets of the Iowa State Fair (Yeah,
we show off our agricultural products but what we're really most proud
of is our kids) It's a Good Thing to take home a blue ribbon - but the
real jackpot is having a son or daughter take one home!

Equally important: recognition for the people who invested of
themselves to help it happen. Normally we think of teachers, athletic
coaches, and parents - but there are almost always others who make a
difference in fostering accomplishment. They also deserve
recognition - and that recognition has a way of inspiring others.

| We appoint valedictorians, they don't earn it.

Sounds like a local problem. 'Taint so here.

| Some places keep talking about abolishing any form of academic
measurement.

Proof that there is still no shortage of fools in the world.

| Education a hard sell? Not sure we'd recognize it if it happened.

Somebody (Zig Zigler?) once said that selling is the art of offering
people something to say "Yes" to. I think that has more than just a
grain of truth to it.

I'm pretty sure you'll recognize it if you make it happen. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Renata wrote:

Fixed your statement...
R

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

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


United States citizens


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.


Not really, if you think about it. After all, a vast majority of the
citizens were all in favor of slavery, against equal rights, etc.
It's not really a complete "majority rules" kinda system. Just may
take time to set things right.



Slavery did not fall until there was a significant *popular* opposition
to it (brought about, BTW, by *religion* in large part), so no, the
"vast majority" did not support it forever. Moreover, the
issue of what ought to be taught in schools is not a civil liberties
issue like slavery. i.e., It is not a "freedom thing." Public schools
are funded at the point of the taxman's gun. This means that if everyone
is forced to pay up, then basic fairness demands that everyone gets a
voice in what is taught, however boneheaded their ideas might be.

The irony is that the science establishment has long fed at the public
trough via public universities, government grants, and all the rest of
the whoring of Other People's Money that goes on. Now they want to
ditcate just who gets to compete with them in the public school system.
Well, that's not going to fly. A whole lot of people, faced with an
inability to get the government out of their wallets and personal lives,
have decided to fight back and at least get some control of how their
money gets spent. The fact that I may not agree with their particular
positions is irrelevant. They are right to be annoyed and their methods
are prefectly understandable.

Moreover, the scientific High Priests don't help much. The "We're right
and anyone who questions us is an idiot - So do what we say and keep
paying for it..." line of thinking (seen in this very thread in several
places) looks to Joe Sixpack to just be another form of religious
fundamentalism (which it is, when stated that way).

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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

And, of course, they think the ID'ers and creationists are overreacting
in the other direction.

The problem is the IDers are trying to force the removal of best
practice current science from the educational system in favor of
pseudo-science.

The thing I always think of is "what if when they all get to their final
reward they discover it all did come from "the Big Bang" and that is how
it was chosen to do Creation?" What a waste of effort on something that
didn't really matter while they could have been doing something useful
and perhaps even important! OTOH, if the other side turns out wrong, so
what? They'll have a pretty useful description of how it all worked
that will have produced some useful insights into biological processes
that will have indirectly, at the very least, influenced medicine, etc.

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.

That's a problem then...if one is forced to resort to some supernatural
being as intervening to explain any physical process, then there is by
definition of the word "supernatural" a complete loss of
predictibility. Ergo, one now no longer has a science since the
cosmological principle has been violated.

How it suggests "that it will change ground rules or how it has
anything to do with the external power" lies in the presumption of the paragraph--being forced to admit defeat in understanding implies that one reaches a point in which scientific exploration has reached a complete and utter impasse which would imply that at a very fundamental level one has come to a point at which there would be results which are not consistent w/ nature and those points are impossible to be resolved. In that case, one has a conundrum that leads to the inability to predict anything for sure since the very basis has been shown to be to be "violatable" in some instance.

That there are areas in which we still lack complete understanding is a
totally different concept than the concept of throwing up one's hands
and saying "we don't know" in the sense that it is unknowable and that
some all powerful force unrestricted to using "natural" forces caused an
event.

The references the "why" as opposed to "how" questions are rightly left
to some explanation beyond the physical sciences and, in my reading of
Einstein, Hawking, et al., it is in that context alone that they invoke
the concept of a Deity.

In the end, it's a question of whether your side can ever manage to get
over the overreacting to what science says and means and quit feeling
threatened in ones' position in the world on the basis of some
theoretical explanation that is our best effort to understand the "how"
of how the universe "ticks".

If you can ever generate a coherent and complete explanation that stands
up to peer review on details, then you may even contribute something to
the argument, but as already noted, as long as there is a reliance on
the supernatural for intervention after the initial event, then you've
left the scientific realm.

It's been at least a rational discourse, but needs to come to an end in
r.w so I'll close w/ this.

Kenneth wrote:

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 07:38:07 -0400, "George" George@least
wrote:

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

If they're supported with tax money, sure.

Howdy,

As I mentioned somewhere else, they are. It's called "tax
exempt status" but, of course, that just means that they are
supported with tax money without the necessity of
contributing to it.

That, of course, is no different than any other 501(c)3. And they do
pay sales and other use taxes and any paid employees pay _their_ taxes,
etc., ...

Otoh, like many of the others (Red Cross comes to mind as perhaps the
most widely known example) make sizable contributions back to the
community that among other things, relieve expenses for social and other
services that otherwise would come from the public coffers so there's
mutual benefit there...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.

That's where we disagree prfoundly--science doesn't have a "first
proposition" in the sense you have one. Science works backwards to
discover that first proposition and discovers whatever it discovers on
the way...

Morris Dovey wrote:

George (in ) said:

| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
| than someone of faith should question science.

I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a scientist
should question *everything* and that *everyone* should question
science.

That depends on what you mean by "question science". If you mean
continually test the present hypotheses and prediction of current
science, certainly--and good science does precisely that. If you mean
question science in the sense of the IDers and Creationists that
"Science" is fundamentally flawed in asserting the existence of natural
processes from the very beginning, then no.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
....

Both science and faith ought to be *continuously* questioned and not just by
their respective High Priests.

See my response to Dovey on that...

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


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.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that
to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal.
This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in
principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.

WABOS. Are you teaching Philosopy of Science now? Where do you get this
so-called FPOS? Look here http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm, for what
John Stuart Mill says about the principles and structure of science. One of
the big problems of this discussion is you invent your own epistemology and
then accuse others of not playing by your rules. There is a well developed
structure and nomenclature available, developed by better minds than yours,
and an immense body of knowledge that is the basis of the disciplines of
science. Catch up before you try to overthrow.

all means that scientific hypotheses are open-ended, that
they haven't been "proven" in the vernacular sense. Here's where the
ignorant get confused. While all scientific hypotheses are
formally provisional, science does indeed _disprove_ with certainty.
Scientific theories are those hypotheses which have withstood many
rigorous experiments. QED is an amazingly accurate theory. The ignorant

Inter-species evolution is one such "scientific theory." Please cite
the "rigorous experiments" that justify it. Hint: You can't because
this is a theory that is based on secondary evidence and induction.
Direct experiment is impossible because of the timeframes involved.
This means that this theory is *weaker* than one where direct experimental
evidence exists and thus is more open to criticism.

Is "secondary" supposed to denigrate the evidence and convince us of its
weakness? Evolution is like astronomy, based on observation rather than
direct experimentation. In particular, it is hard to do experiments because
our lives are too short, our reach too limited. Nonetheless, there is a
huge body of experimental knowledge to form the basis of an overarching
theory (evolution, cosmology) that ties the observations together and allows
scientists to understand what is observed, why it is that way, and what
might happen in some other set of conditions.


aren't marching on Washington to have Aristotle's notions of light taught
in the classroom, though. Hmm. Science is not a belief system. Science is
common sense, formalized.

Science is most assuredly a belief system. It has unprovable starting
propositions, a teleology, an epistemology, and all the rest that go
with a system of belief. It's sole justification is *utilitarian* -
It does useful things for us. But your attempt to elevate it as
a somehow *innately better* system than any other belief system
is absurd.


Superstition, on the other hand, is a bunch of Just So stories,
untestable, unreliable, unnecessary.
Science, indeed all rational thought, is hard. Superstition is easy.

Your philosophical naivete' is astonishing. You *believe* in Reason
though you cannot demonstrate anything more than its utility - certainly
not its sufficiency. You believe that there is no intelligent
action behind the actions of the physical world you observe. This is a
superstition no different than the inverse argument - neither is
ultimately demonstrable or falsifiable. *All* thought is hard.
Presuming reason-empiricism to be innately better than all other
forms of thinking is foolish and presumptuous.


The real issue is that the ignoramuses want to force everyone to
not-think, too. Don't fall into their trap of debating reality vs
creationism. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection
is

Evolution is a *theory* some aspects of which are far more likely than
others.
But, sadly, like a depressing number of other people I've met you
choose to *believe* it with religious fervor and describe anyone who
disagrees with you as an "ignoramus".

one process whereby evolution occurs. Creationists are willfully ignorant
fools. That's not an ad hominem argument, that's a fact.

This is indeed ad hominem and the sign of a debater terrified that
their intellectual house-of-cards will be exposed for the fraud that
it is. Pleople who cling to their position screaming that everyone
who disagrees with it is an idiot are called "religious fundamentalists",
and you are every bit that ...


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

It is hard to know where to stop with this rant. So, I will stop here. For
now.

RAmen
Steve

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

True...but you, imo, used what he wrote/spoke to promote a position that
I don't believe he actually held (or would hold now if he were still
here)...

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.

I never said dichotomy either...I did suggest there's a difference in
what I think you're trying to use what he (and other prominent early
scientists as welll) said to represent as opposed to what they actually
meant/said/believed.

IOW, I think Einstein was comfortable w/ the thought that there could
well have been an intelligence behind the initial event, but I have
never seen anything in his writings that implies to me that for an iota
he thought there was anything but a physical process in play after
that...it would, imo, totally negate the idea of there even being a
"unified theory" if that were not the case.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

See my other response...in short I think it is you and your side who
"spin" the words out of their context to mean something other than what
was actually said or meant.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
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.

Who said anything about any removal?

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.

It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.

Where I have a problem is in the requirement beyond the initial design
for continual or periodic intervention--that, imo, removes the
discussion from the realm of science.

I have addressed this at some length elsewhere in this thread. If, you
are simply postulating that there was an initial Being "Before Anything"
that set up a set of physical laws and started the wheels in motion and
is now watching, that's one thing. That model is not my understanding
of the whole of ID, however.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

....
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.

We don't yet know that...at some point the singularities may yet be
resolved--there's some evidence that may be possible w/ some of the
advancements currently.

The point of science is that one goes backwards from observable by
construction and observation until one finds what is revealed...one
doesn't start from an a priori consideration and try to justify that.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.


That's where we disagree prfoundly--science doesn't have a "first
proposition" in the sense you have one. Science works backwards to
discover that first proposition and discovers whatever it discovers on
the way...

Dead Wrong. Science - like every other system of knowledge acquisition -
has one (or more) starting propositions (aka axioms). These foundational
axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or disproven. In the case of
science, several axioms are obvious:

1) Reason combined with Sensory Input is a reliable way to learn new
things (when guided by the Scientific Method to minimize/elmininate
individual bias).

2) The Universe can be understood in purely material-mechanical terms.
That is, there is no need to understand or acknowledge an intelligent
First and/or Sustaining Cause in order to get meaningful information
about the Universe.

3) 2) above is *sufficient* to know everything (in principle) that we can
know about the Universe.

And so on ... Note that Science *proceeds from* (begins with) these
assumptions. Note also that these are neither provable nor falsifiable,
they are just assumed starting points.


This is not a remarkable thing. As I said, all systems of epistemology
have this property. You start with one or more unprovable propositions
and see where they take you. *However*, thoughtful people stop now and
then and ask, "Given where my system of thought has taken me thus far,
are some changes in my starting propositions justified?"

*This* is where the heart of the debate between the IDers and today's
Establishment Science lies. The IDers argue that, as we look at where
*Science* has taken us over the past several hundred years, proposition
2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
....

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

That's the problem...you have it backwards. As noted above, science
works backwards to find out from observation what _is_ a workable "first
proposition" that leads to a coherent explanation of "what is".

Whatever that turns out to be will be whatever it turns out to be...and
will undoubtedly continue to be modified for the forseeable future as
science continues to progress.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


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.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal. This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.

The problem w/ this viewpoint is that you're claiming a priori that
there isn't a scientific basis. This, of course, negates there even
being "science".

As noted before, it is possible that "science" may reach a point at
which it _is_ forced to "throw up its proverbial hands" and say any
further understanding is clearly totally impossible. I don't think that
will happen, but it is possible. If so, as I've noted before, it will
cause great havoc as we will have shown that everything we do is pure
luck and subject to complete failure at any point since there will have
been shown to be no basis for any physical law whatsoever.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

George (in ) said:

| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
| than someone of faith should question science.

I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a scientist
should question *everything* and that *everyone* should question
science.


That depends on what you mean by "question science". If you mean
continually test the present hypotheses and prediction of current
science, certainly--and good science does precisely that. If you mean
question science in the sense of the IDers and Creationists that

IDers and Creationists are rather different camps of thought, though
the adherents of each share some common views. Lumping them together
casually smacks of guilt-by-associaton. For instance, Creationism
almost always means people who insist in a literal 6x24hr creation
cycle. IDers as a group do not - in fact, one IDer I read called
that reading of Genesis a "wooden literal interpretation".


"Science" is fundamentally flawed in asserting the existence of natural

Strawman. Neither IDers nor Creationist assert that "Science is fundamentally
flawed ....". IDers, especially, assert that *some of the assumptions*
that Science are based on are *inadequate*. No one questions the utility
value of Science. (At least no one relevant to this discussion.)

processes from the very beginning, then no.



No mature thinker is ever unwilling to question their first propositons
(i.e. The unprovable axioms upon which their system of thought is built.)
The stubborn refusal of the Science Establishment to even be willing
to consider the sufficiency of it's long-held premises is silly.
No one is suggesting we throw out Science, the Scientific Method, or
burn Scientists at the stake. What *is* suggested is that there may
be a more valid model in which to contextualize/harmonize the findings
of empirical Science.


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