wrote:

SNIP

In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.



I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.




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

Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


There are problems with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't
nailed a single one of them.

Maybe I missed them, but could you briefly explain these problems?

Joe Barta


Steps out of the Rhetorical Goo to get back On-Topic to the Off-Topic Topic

Honesty compels me to stipulate that I am *not* an ID expert. I've done
some reading in the area and have a POV, but this does not mean I know
enough about it to speak authoritatively. So ... what follows is my
*opinion* about its problems. Generally speaking, the problems have to
do with their *method* (which is muddy) rather than their *content*
(which needs further investigation):


1) ID makes proposals both in the Philosophy Of Science and the *practice*
of Science. All well and good, but ...

2) It does not do a good job of separating the two. For example,
Behe speaks on "irreducable complexity which ought to be purely a
question of Science as we understand it. But, he then jumps to the
conclusion that this implies a Designer. The first claim falls into the
*practice* of Science, the second into the *metaphysics* of Science.
Conflating these two areas muddies the waters and does a disservice
to both disciplines. ID needs to pursue its claims in both courts
separately and clearly.

3) The existing orthodox scientific community resists ID. There are
lots of very good historical reasons for them to be suspicious.
They demand that ID ahere to the time proven methodology of the
Scientific Method. To the extent that there is evidenciary support
for ID's claims, its proponents ought to be meeting the scientific
community on *its* terms. That is, writing papers that contain
falsifiable hypotheses and having them judged in the court of peer
review. This is important even if that court is biased and married
to its own foreordained conclusions because ID needs to show more
*data* if it is to be taken seriously. Assume for a moment that ID
had a valid point - even so, it takes years for sea changes like
this to be embraced by the larger Scientific community. ID
proponents seem reluctant to do this, either because they have
no evidenciary support yet or they are worried that they will not
be taken seriously. ID - if true - would rock the foundations
of modern Science. Those who subscribe to it need to be willing to
plead their case an inch at a time perhaps for years. They seem
hesitant to do so.

4) The philosophical component of ID - that the matter/material/naturalist
view of Science is fundamentally inadequate - is the cornerstone of
everything they do. But again, their conflation of the practice of
Science with its philosophy makes this point less clear than it should
be. This single point is probably more imporant than all the "Science"
they could ever bring to the table. They need to do a much better job
of describing the limits of the existing philosophy of Science
*AND* then showing why their proposal fills the void. Although I am not
an IDer, I am most sympathetic to their argument here - I've thought
for years that Science was unnecessarily blinding itself by avoiding
metaphysics - but their arguments need more crispness, forcefulness,
and thus exposure. (Just for the record, the harmonization of
Epistemology and Metaphysics has troubled philosophers for
centuries. It's a really hard problem, but that doesn't mean
it ought not to be constantly attempted.)

5) The majority of IDers I've read are devout Theists in some particular
religious tradition. I am too, and have no problem with this.
HOWEVER, they need to realize that this means existing orthodox
Science will be eternally (!) suspicious that they are really just
literal Creationists in drag. (You've seen a lot of this in this
very thread.) They need to be *much* clearer in saying that ID
is about *authorship* first and foremost, not *mechanism*. In
particular, macro-evolution's validity has nothing to do whatsoever
with ID's merits one way or the other. An Author/God that can
create a Universe in one "breath" can easily use evolutionary
mechanisms to do so (or not). There are lots of valid criticisms
to be made about macro-evolution, but ID needs to separate itself
from this discussion until & unless it has demonstrated a case for
its starting propositions. Many otherwise honorable and honest
Scientists are put off when the see ID being used as a proxy to
attack macro-evolutionary theory. I personally have a number of
problems with that theory myself, but understand that these have
nothing to do with the question of Authorship. IOW, theory *must*
precede *practice* and they are trying to do both simultaneously.
I applaud their vigor, but it undermines clarity and makes their
case hard to read. (I have a complementary complaint about
the Scientific establishment that is way too quick - IMO -
to elevate relatively weaker inductive theories like
macro-evolution to the same level of significance as theories
that can actually be tested by experimental methods. This
is why I keep saying that there is a lot more "Faith" in
certain corners of Science than its practicioners like to
acknowledge.)

Sidebar: When I have this conversation with my fellow Theists,
particularly those in the school of so-called "literal innerant"
Biblican interpretation, I have a parallel beef with them.
The authority of the Biblical literature does not hinge on
literalism. No innerantist actually takes every single
Biblican passage literally. They acknowledge that there are
vast passages of the text - e.g., The poetry of the Old Testament -
that is metaphorical and symbolic. They miss the point that
the Gensis account is about *Authorship* _not_ *Mechanism*.
It is entirely possible to ascribe authority to the Genesis
account without insisting that it is a literal description of
the timeline. Yet, for some reason, literal interpretation of
Genesis has become a litmus test for a significant portion of
the Theist community much like evolution has become the litmus
test for mainstream Science. In my view, both communities are
missing the point by a mile. The theory of Authorship has nothing
whatsoever to do with its mechanisms. Both communities thus miss
the opportunity to see where they have important common ground.
For instance, the Big Bang theory is widely believed to be a
fairly reasonable explanation for the mechanics of the first
femto-seconds of the birth of the Universe. But once you get away
from the Science v. Creation argument (which is bogus anyway)
you begin to see that the Big Bang "Science" is very much parallel
and complementary to the idea that God breathed the Universe
into existence in a "moment".

6) Political Note: Many IDers are falling into the trap of
thinking that they need to fight their fight in the educational
system we have today. They don't. The fundamental problem here
is that education is *public*. In Western democracies that means
such education is - by intent - entirely secular. Any hint of
religiosity will be seen as an assault on the so-called "separation
of Church & State" (wrongly, in my opinon, at least sometimes).
Until they have a compelling case as to why their views really
are "Science", they are going to continue to lose battles like the
recent one in the PA courts. The *real* fight they ought to be
undertaking is to show that "secularism" is itself a religion no
different than any other and that "public" schools thus cannot
avoid making a religious choice. Once they establish this, they
can join with many of us who want to see "public" education
abolished. It is an assault on Liberty and the choice of Free
People. Education is the responsibility of parents, not government.
By playing the game of the political collectivists who want the
government to be the sole/primary instrument of educating the young,
IDers miss the opportunity to fix the primary/foundational problem.


There are some brilliant people writing in the ID community. Some of
their philosophers are first-rate thinkers. (I am not competent to judge
their scientists' particular claims.) It's a shame that they are not
heard better and more loudly. But *they* are the ones proposing a very
big sea change in Science. It is thus incumbent on *them* to make their
case compellingly.

I've had the great fortune to be educated by both Scientists and
Theologians. It is a great tragedy that they cannot find more common
ground. As a convinced Theist, I find it depressing that they seem not
to be able to acknowledge that all Truth - Scientific, Theological &
Moral - springs from a common Author.



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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[schnibble]

*boggle*

I've never shat a tapeworm into the bowl before... but I'm sure I'd feel
the same looking at such an amazing adaptable parasite.

er
--
email not valid

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There are problems with ID as currently proposed, but you
haven't nailed a single one of them.

Maybe I missed them, but could you briefly explain these
problems?

Steps out of the Rhetorical Goo to get back On-Topic to the
Off-Topic Topic


First let me say thank-you. I am thankful that there are such bright
lights out there willing to share their views so eagerly and with such
clarity. I now have a much clearer understanding of the issue.

That said, I have a few very minor comments to what you wrote...

Honesty compels me to stipulate that I am *not* an ID expert. I've
done some reading in the area and have a POV, but this does not
mean I know enough about it to speak authoritatively. So ... what
follows is my *opinion* about its problems. Generally speaking,
the problems have to do with their *method* (which is muddy)
rather than their *content* (which needs further investigation):


1) ID makes proposals both in the Philosophy Of Science and the
*practice*
of Science. All well and good, but ...

2) It does not do a good job of separating the two. For example,
Behe speaks on "irreducable complexity which ought to be
purely a question of Science as we understand it. But, he then
jumps to the conclusion that this implies a Designer. The
first claim falls into the *practice* of Science, the second
into the *metaphysics* of Science. Conflating these two areas
muddies the waters and does a disservice to both disciplines.
ID needs to pursue its claims in both courts separately and
clearly.

3) The existing orthodox scientific community resists ID. There
are
lots of very good historical reasons for them to be
suspicious. They demand that ID ahere to the time proven
methodology of the Scientific Method. To the extent that
there is evidenciary support for ID's claims, its proponents
ought to be meeting the scientific community on *its* terms.
That is, writing papers that contain falsifiable hypotheses
and having them judged in the court of peer review. This is
important even if that court is biased and married to its own
foreordained conclusions because ID needs to show more *data*
if it is to be taken seriously. Assume for a moment that ID
had a valid point - even so, it takes years for sea changes
like this to be embraced by the larger Scientific community.
ID proponents seem reluctant to do this, either because they
have no evidenciary support yet or they are worried that they
will not be taken seriously. ID - if true - would rock the
foundations of modern Science. Those who subscribe to it need
to be willing to plead their case an inch at a time perhaps
for years. They seem hesitant to do so.

4) The philosophical component of ID - that the
matter/material/naturalist
view of Science is fundamentally inadequate - is the
cornerstone of everything they do. But again, their
conflation of the practice of Science with its philosophy
makes this point less clear than it should be. This single
point is probably more imporant than all the "Science" they
could ever bring to the table. They need to do a much better
job of describing the limits of the existing philosophy of
Science *AND* then showing why their proposal fills the void.
Although I am not an IDer, I am most sympathetic to their
argument here - I've thought for years that Science was
unnecessarily blinding itself by avoiding metaphysics - but
their arguments need more crispness, forcefulness, and thus
exposure. (Just for the record, the harmonization of
Epistemology and Metaphysics has troubled philosophers for
centuries. It's a really hard problem, but that doesn't mean
it ought not to be constantly attempted.)

5) The majority of IDers I've read are devout Theists in some
particular
religious tradition. I am too, and have no problem with this.
HOWEVER, they need to realize that this means existing
orthodox Science will be eternally (!) suspicious that they
are really just literal Creationists in drag. (You've seen a
lot of this in this very thread.) They need to be *much*
clearer in saying that ID is about *authorship* first and
foremost, not *mechanism*. In particular, macro-evolution's
validity has nothing to do whatsoever with ID's merits one way
or the other. An Author/God that can create a Universe in one
"breath" can easily use evolutionary mechanisms to do so (or
not). There are lots of valid criticisms to be made about
macro-evolution, but ID needs to separate itself from this
discussion until & unless it has demonstrated a case for
its starting propositions. Many otherwise honorable and
honest Scientists are put off when the see ID being used as a
proxy to attack macro-evolutionary theory. I personally have
a number of problems with that theory myself, but understand
that these have nothing to do with the question of Authorship.
IOW, theory *must* precede *practice* and they are trying to
do both simultaneously. I applaud their vigor, but it
undermines clarity and makes their case hard to read. (I have
a complementary complaint about the Scientific establishment
that is way too quick - IMO - to elevate relatively weaker
inductive theories like macro-evolution to the same level of
significance as theories that can actually be tested by
experimental methods. This is why I keep saying that there is
a lot more "Faith" in certain corners of Science than its
practicioners like to acknowledge.)

Sidebar: When I have this conversation with my fellow Theists,
particularly those in the school of so-called "literal
innerant"

"Innerant"... this word threw me. Until I knew what it meant, the
phrase "literal innerant" was a complete mystery. It would seem that
the correct spelling is "inerrant"...

in·er·rant (adj.)
Incapable of erring; infallible.
Containing no errors.

And for the benefit of other dummies like me, a "literal inerrant", in
this context is one that takes the text of the Bible literally... that
it is literally infallible. If the Bible says God created the universe
in 6 days, then by golly that's all it took.

Biblican interpretation, I have a parallel beef with
them. The authority of the Biblical literature does not hinge
on literalism. No innerantist actually takes every single
Biblican passage literally. They acknowledge that there are
vast passages of the text - e.g., The poetry of the Old
Testament - that is metaphorical and symbolic. They miss the
point that the Gensis account is about *Authorship* _not_
*Mechanism*. It is entirely possible to ascribe authority to
the Genesis account without insisting that it is a literal
description of the timeline. Yet, for some reason, literal
interpretation of Genesis has become a litmus test for a
significant portion of the Theist community much like
evolution has become the litmus test for mainstream Science.
In my view, both communities are missing the point by a mile.
The theory of Authorship has nothing whatsoever to do with its
mechanisms. Both communities thus miss the opportunity to see
where they have important common ground. For instance, the Big
Bang theory is widely believed to be a fairly reasonable
explanation for the mechanics of the first femto-seconds of
the birth of the Universe. But once you get away from the
Science v. Creation argument (which is bogus anyway) you begin
to see that the Big Bang "Science" is very much parallel
and complementary to the idea that God breathed the Universe
into existence in a "moment".

6) Political Note: Many IDers are falling into the trap of
thinking that they need to fight their fight in the
educational system we have today. They don't. The
fundamental problem here is that education is *public*. In
Western democracies that means such education is - by intent -
entirely secular. Any hint of religiosity will be seen as an
assault on the so-called "separation of Church & State"
(wrongly, in my opinon, at least sometimes). Until they have a
compelling case as to why their views really are "Science",
they are going to continue to lose battles like the recent one
in the PA courts. The *real* fight they ought to be
undertaking is to show that "secularism" is itself a religion
no different than any other and that "public" schools thus
cannot avoid making a religious choice. Once they establish
this, they can join with many of us who want to see "public"
education abolished. It is an assault on Liberty and the
choice of Free People. Education is the responsibility of
parents, not government.

I believe I understand the reasons for your assertion. But I think
this is one area where idealistic logic runs headfirst into the
realistic illogic of dealing with masses of human beings.

I'd say that in a practical sense, collectively educating our youth is
a MUCH better option all the way around than individually educating
them. Of course, that said, I also think every parent ought to have
the right to individually educate their children if they wish. But I'm
perfectly happy to observe that those parents are in the extreme
minority.

By playing the game of the political
collectivists who want the government to be the sole/primary
instrument of educating the young, IDers miss the opportunity
to fix the primary/foundational problem.


There are some brilliant people writing in the ID community. Some
of their philosophers are first-rate thinkers. (I am not competent
to judge their scientists' particular claims.) It's a shame that
they are not heard better and more loudly. But *they* are the ones
proposing a very big sea change in Science. It is thus incumbent
on *them* to make their case compellingly.

I've had the great fortune to be educated by both Scientists and
Theologians. It is a great tragedy that they cannot find more
common ground. As a convinced Theist, I find it depressing that
they seem not to be able to acknowledge that all Truth -
Scientific, Theological & Moral - springs from a common Author.

I'm still a little puzzled why there is the need to believe there is
an "author". If an apple falls from a tree, we think in terms of "it
just happened" and if we dig further we can find perfectly rational
and understandable explanations as to why it occurred. We normally
don't think in terms of someone "designing" that apple to fall.

I understand that this gets into the "philosophy of science" as you
put it, but why even suggest that this philosophy might have an
author? Thousands of years of religious teachings aside, where does
the notion of "authorship" come from?

To me, all truth springs from nothing. It just is. If we don't
understand something, it's because we simply don't understand it (yet)
or are incapable of understanding it.

Or am I just restating the same thing in a different way?

Joe Barta

Enoch Root wrote:

I've never shat a tapeworm into the bowl before... but I'm sure
I'd feel the same looking at such an amazing adaptable parasite.

Truly...

http://www.ratemypoo.com/

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta wrote:

And for the benefit of other dummies like me, a "literal inerrant", in
this context is one that takes the text of the Bible literally... that
it is literally infallible. If the Bible says God created the universe
in 6 days, then by golly that's all it took.

Going even farther OT now... I've always thought this to be a particularly
bizarre understanding of Genesis. The sun and the earth were not made, by this
account, until the third or fourth "day" IIRC -- which makes it completely
impossible that the first two days, at least, are literally "days" by the
accepted meaning of the term.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Joe Barta wrote:

SNIP

That said, I have a few very minor comments to what you wrote...

SNIP

Sidebar: When I have this conversation with my fellow Theists,
particularly those in the school of so-called "literal
innerant"


"Innerant"... this word threw me. Until I knew what it meant, the
phrase "literal innerant" was a complete mystery. It would seem that
the correct spelling is "inerrant"...

in·er·rant (adj.)
Incapable of erring; infallible.
Containing no errors.

My apologies. It was late when I wrote the post and I didn't check
spelling closely enough. You have both the spelling and the meaning
correct.


And for the benefit of other dummies like me, a "literal inerrant", in
this context is one that takes the text of the Bible literally... that
it is literally infallible. If the Bible says God created the universe
in 6 days, then by golly that's all it took.

Just be careful. By, the "Bible", they mean the *autographs* - the
original texts. Most all inerrantists agree that the texts have been
corrupted to some degree over time because we no long have the
originals, only copies. They thus heartily support activities like
archaelogy, lingustics, and texual criticism as means to better
understanding what the original texts contain. Pretty much all of them
argue that such textual "corruption" is fairly minor and typically has
little effect on the end meaning. So far, they've been largely
vindicated (about the quality of the texts we have today) by this claim
each time older and older texts are found that more-or-less confirm
today's texts.

SNIP


I'm still a little puzzled why there is the need to believe there is
an "author". If an apple falls from a tree, we think in terms of "it
just happened" and if we dig further we can find perfectly rational
and understandable explanations as to why it occurred. We normally
don't think in terms of someone "designing" that apple to fall.

I understand that this gets into the "philosophy of science" as you
put it, but why even suggest that this philosophy might have an
author? Thousands of years of religious teachings aside, where does
the notion of "authorship" come from?

To me, all truth springs from nothing. It just is. If we don't
understand something, it's because we simply don't understand it (yet)
or are incapable of understanding it.

Or am I just restating the same thing in a different way?

"Truth" does not "spring from nothing". What is "True" always depends on
your rules for acquiring knowledge (your epistemology). An apple falls
from a tree and we can describe that by the laws of physics only because
we have an agree-to play book about how physics is done. But that is a
very small issue of mechanics. The more interesting question is how the
Universe in which the tree exists ever came to be. How is it that the
law of gravity operates as it does? Why was there a Big Bang and where
did the matter and energy therein come from? These are not questions of
mechanism, they are questions of First Cause...

Your question has no simple answer, nor is there any "proof" - see my
earlier post about the non-provability of axiomatic starting points. All
I can give you is *my* take on it. You may- or may not find it
responsive. Note that I am not trying to convert you or sell you
anything here, I am merely responding to your question in the only way I
can. I am a Theist - someone who believes in an Author - for several
reasons:

1) Step back from the detail of biology, physics, or any of modern science
and look at the Whole Picture we see so far - The Universe taken as
whole. I know of no example *within* that Universe we're looking at
where Something comes from Nothing. All Somethings have a First Cause -
another Something or Someone that brought them into being. It thus
seems reasonable to infer that the Universe itself had a First Cause.

The fact that anything exists implies it came
from somewhere/someone/somehow.

2) Assume that every bit of Science we currently posses is *precisely*
correct and without error. That is, assume that the Science
we have today at all levels of certainty is right on the money.
Even if that were thecase, Science is unable to answer the basic question
of First Cause: How did the Universe as a whole come to be?
Science is limited to questions of mechanism, it cannot address
*cause* or *meaning* (which is why the IDers believe the philosophy
of Science is broken). IOW, not how does it *work*, but how did
the whole business even come to be in existence.
There are several possibilities:

a) The Universe is a magical place and we can't reliably know anything
about it. (If true, then Science is pointless because it may
well just all be an illusion.)

b) There are versions of a) above that claim that knowing the
First Cause is mystical/magical, but that we can still reliably
know things about the mechanics of how it works. This always
struck me as the "giving up before you've started" plan.
Understanding Mechanism without giving thought to Cause reduces
all of us to mere machinery. There is ample evidence that
humans particularly are considerably more than just machines.
Try accounting for aesthetics, laughter, love, hate, creativity,
and so in in purely mechanical terms. Contemporary Science
is mired down in this purely mechanical view of all things and
keeps trying to produce explanations that would account for
exactly these kinds of things, and they generally fail.

A human being is more than just a collection of cells programmed
by DNA in the same way that a Bach Motet is more than just notes
on a page: The whole is somehow greater than the sum of the parts,
and purely mechanistic explanations are laughably inadequate
to circumscribe this. There is something profound and transcendent
about being human that cannot be explained away because we understand
the "gears and pulleys" that make us what we are physically.

Theologians will tell you that this transcendent character
of humanity exists because we "made in God's image". I think
that's as reasonable a hypothesis as any.

There is a transcendent component to human experience.
This suggests that there is a source of that transcendence
that is larger than just the mechanics of life.

(BTW, one of the great inconsistencies within today's Science
community lies in this very area. If you argue that mankind
is purely a machine, you have no basis for moral law of any kind.
If I'm just a machine, then the best/strongest/most fit machine
should survive. There ought never be any reason for laws against
murder and mayhem, because these are just the "best machines"
conquering other machines. You cannot deny trancendence in
the matter of mankind's essential character on the one hand,
but demand transcendant moral law on the other.

Sure, a bunch of "machines" can all get together and decide
that having some sort of legal system is in their own
self-interest as a matter of survival, but any notion of
"right" or "wrong" is utterly inconsistent.
Yet, you'll find precious few Scientists to agree that there is
no such thing as morality, nor any need for it. They pretty
much all have *some* moral code by which they abide - and for
a lot more reason than purely utilitarian self-interest in most
cases I've met. Similar examples exist in other areas - how is
it that mere machines can enjoy art or music, exhibit strong
emotions, and so on. The core answer to this is that Science
itself may well have to limit itself to understanding humanity
in purely mechanical terms - unless, of course, the IDers can
finally make their case. But *Scientists* don't have to do that.
Many consistent and thoughtful Scientists will tell you that
they use Science only as a tool to undersand Mechanism, but they
personally remain interested in Cause and human transcendent
experience because they too grasp that the whole is larger
than the sum of the parts.)

c) The Universe has always been eternally existent. (Very unlikely,
given the current understanding of the Big Bang which fairly
compellingly argues for an event that began the Universe.)

d) The Universe has an Author. Someone/something/somehow made
the Universe come to be. If that Someone/something itself
had an Author, we have to repeat the logic (The Author had
an Author who had an Author ...). Eventually you come to one of
two possibilities:

There is an infinite progression of Authors - the so-called
"turtles all the way down" theory.

There is an Ultimate Author that transcends time and terminates
the "stack of turtles".

I don't buy "turtles all the way down" because if true, it leaves
the question open as to how there could be an infinite succession
of Authors.

The Ultimate Author subcase here makes more intuitive sense to me:

The fact that anything exists implies that someone/something
brought it into being _and_ that there is an Ultimate Author
behind it all that transcends time, space, and all known laws
of the this Universe and all other possibly existing
Universes.

Have I proven my case? Nope. You never can prove your starting points.
But at the very least, I hope you are convinced that there is a
thoughtful and measured analysis that leads to Theism that is not in any
way inferior to the analysis that leads to the development of any other
knowledge system like Science.

More to the point, I hope you embrace the idea that to truly "know"
things, you need *multiple kinds" of knowledge systems. It's not *just*
Science, or Mathematics, or Logic, or Theology, or Existential
Experience, or ... we need to become knowledgeable, we need them *all*.
There have been two great tragedies in human intellectual development.
The first was to *divide* knowledge systems and pit them against each
other: Theology v. Science, Reason v. Experience, and so on. The second
was the emergence of philosophies in the 20th Century that were
*destructive* to knowledge. Deconstructionism and Post-Modernism are
examples of worldviews that outright destroy knowledge by
attempting to show that nothing can ever actually be known.

I hope this answers your question...



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

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

says...
But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and
terrible could come out of a really big and really rich
communist/capitalist hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Absolutely!

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What
are the dangers? What are the concerns?

There are so many possibilities that I don't know where to start.

Then surely you could start somewhere?

But having a totalitarian state with as much economic and military
might as the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

You're more or less restating my point. Beyond that, I'd be interested
to hear some realistic thoughts on how it might play out.

Here's one scenario.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/...ton020905.html

Rick

On 2/13/2006 1:34 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
[ snipped the majority, just going to hit on one point here ]

Your question has no simple answer, nor is there any "proof" - see my
earlier post about the non-provability of axiomatic starting points. All
I can give you is *my* take on it. You may- or may not find it
responsive. Note that I am not trying to convert you or sell you
anything here, I am merely responding to your question in the only way I
can. I am a Theist - someone who believes in an Author - for several
reasons:

1) Step back from the detail of biology, physics, or any of modern science
and look at the Whole Picture we see so far - The Universe taken as
whole. I know of no example *within* that Universe we're looking at
where Something comes from Nothing. All Somethings have a First Cause -
another Something or Someone that brought them into being. It thus
seems reasonable to infer that the Universe itself had a First Cause.

The fact that anything exists implies it came
from somewhere/someone/somehow.

Okay, so what is the First Cause for a god? Using your distinction
above, all somethings (god is a something) have a first cause. So there
is a first cause for god, where's the first cause for this something
that created god? Where's the first cause for this something that
created the something that created god? Where's the first cause for......?


I hope this answers your question...


Nope, see my question(s) above.

--
Odinn

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

And for the benefit of other dummies like me, a "literal inerrant", in
this context is one that takes the text of the Bible literally... that
it is literally infallible. If the Bible says God created the universe
in 6 days, then by golly that's all it took.

Going even farther OT now... I've always thought this to be a particularly
bizarre understanding of Genesis. The sun and the earth were not made, by
this
account, until the third or fourth "day" IIRC -- which makes it completely
impossible that the first two days, at least, are literally "days" by the
accepted meaning of the term.


Come on down south and try to make the fundamentalists believe that. Jerry
and pals believe what they believe and they ain't agonna change.

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In fact, public schools are making a choice based on this l'il ole
amendment - to not support a particular religion's philosophies. It
doesn't make secularism into a religion.

Not all religions on this earth espouse this idea of ID and teaching
ID would thus "favor" that particular religion's views.

Until ID can fit under our established precepts of "science", it ain't
science. Science doesn't claim to know all, or always be right, but
it does have rules (testability, etc.) and ID fails in every one of
those rules. Therefore, it ain't science.

Really, you ought to be worrying about the rest of the amendment these
days...

Renata


On 12 Feb 2006 03:34:49 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

-snip-
6) Political Note: Many IDers are falling into the trap of
thinking that they need to fight their fight in the educational
system we have today. They don't. The fundamental problem here
is that education is *public*. In Western democracies that means
such education is - by intent - entirely secular. Any hint of
religiosity will be seen as an assault on the so-called "separation
of Church & State" (wrongly, in my opinon, at least sometimes).
Until they have a compelling case as to why their views really
are "Science", they are going to continue to lose battles like the
recent one in the PA courts. The *real* fight they ought to be
undertaking is to show that "secularism" is itself a religion no
different than any other and that "public" schools thus cannot
avoid making a religious choice. Once they establish this, they
can join with many of us who want to see "public" education
abolished. It is an assault on Liberty and the choice of Free
People. Education is the responsibility of parents, not government.
By playing the game of the political collectivists who want the
government to be the sole/primary instrument of educating the young,
IDers miss the opportunity to fix the primary/foundational problem.

-snip-

Renata wrote:

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You'll notice that this is a directive to *government* to keep its beak
out of private matters - religion in this case. There is no
complementary instruction for it to *prevent* citizens from expressing
their religious views within institutions they *pay* for (say, for
example, a school).

In fact, public schools are making a choice based on this l'il ole
amendment - to not support a particular religion's philosophies. It
doesn't make secularism into a religion.

Secularism *most certainly* is a belief system no different in kind
than any other religion. Every time a school chooses a secular
agenda, it chooses an epistemology, a values system, and a particular
point-of-view about the world in which we live. For example,
so-called "multi-culturalism" is a secular values agenda in that it
conciously make no distinctions between the moral "qualities" of
different cultures.

I'm not arguing against secularism here. I'm arguing that you
cannot make choices in a public school setting without embracing
*some* values system and right now the schools have chosen
secular values. This is as offensive to religious people as
choosing Christian values and epistemology would be to an atheist.
There is thus *no* way to run a publicly funded education program
without violating the sensibilities of some significant portion
of the population.


Not all religions on this earth espouse this idea of ID and teaching
ID would thus "favor" that particular religion's views.

For the moment, (unless/until ID is established as legitimate Science)
that's right. But espousing a purely matter/mechanical/naturalist
view of knowledge is just as much a statement of belief. In both
cases, these are inbound *assumptions* about how the world operates
based on individual *belief*. You cannot argue against ID being
permitted in the schools on the one hand and on the other defend the
presence of materialist/naturalism on the other - its hypocritical.
Either both belong in the school system (noting that, for the moment,
ID ought not to be taught as "Science") or *neither* belongs in the
school.

The root cause here is not ID or Scientific naturalism. The root
cause problem is the fact that schools have been collectivized by
means of government and can thus *never* satisfy the entire or even
a significant percentage of the population's worldview.


Until ID can fit under our established precepts of "science", it ain't
science. Science doesn't claim to know all, or always be right, but
it does have rules (testability, etc.) and ID fails in every one of
those rules. Therefore, it ain't science.

Really, you ought to be worrying about the rest of the amendment these
days...

I do. I worry about the 1st Amendment being violated by the politically-
correct secularists who parade so-called moral "neutrality" and who hide
behind code words like "sexual harrassment", "racism", and "hate speech"
to restrict free expression. I worry about the 2nd Ammendment because it
is under continuous assault by the drooling idiot Left. I worry about
the 4th Amendment because it is under assault by every part of the
political and cultural spectrum - the Right wants to peek in our
windows, and the Left wants to confiscate private wealth. I worry about
the neverending abuse of the Commerce Clause whereby government gives
itself permission to intrude upon anything it feels like in some
contrived claim to commerce.


Every single example I have cited here is really an example of one
thing: The collectivization of our lives through government and the
consequent erradication of the distinction between private and public
matters.

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

Java Man wrote:

But having a totalitarian state with as much economic and
military might as the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

You're more or less restating my point. Beyond that, I'd be
interested to hear some realistic thoughts on how it might play
out.

Here's one scenario.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/...ton020905.html


Interesting article. Thank-you. I'm not entirely sure how realistic or
probable it is, but it's certainly a point to consider.

Joe Barta

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There is something profound and transcendent
about being human that cannot be explained away because we
understand the "gears and pulleys" that make us what we
are physically.

I've never agreed with this notion that somehow we humans are somehow
"special" compared to any other life on the planet, or even to
ANYTHING else anywhere.

Let's take it backwards... were Neandertals profound and trancendent?
Whales? Dogs? Spiders? Earthworms? Amoebae? Bacteria? Organic
molecules? Water molecules?

Certainly, some characteristics that define us as "human", such as
creativity, love, hate, etc are either not present in "lower" animals
or are present to a much less complex degree. I would argue that those
characteristics that you use to place humans in a "special" category
are nothing more than manifestations of our complexity.

Fast forward 100 million years and it's very likley that some future
form of life may surpass human complexity and then humans will find
themselves a "lower" animal.

All that said, if you are suggesting that there may be something
"special" about "living things" in general, I would tend to agree with
you... but I suspect that upon closer examination, the distinction
between living and non-living may be less precise than we think.

Joe Barta

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNIP

In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.



I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.


No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe
(as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.

The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows
directly from the definition of Science. An understanding
that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may
define a discipline that includes Science and considerations
outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline
should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one
insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a
new name to the old discipline.

Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics
is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.

--

FF

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There is something profound and transcendent
about being human that cannot be explained away because we
understand the "gears and pulleys" that make us what we
are physically.

I've never agreed with this notion that somehow we humans are somehow
"special" compared to any other life on the planet, or even to
ANYTHING else anywhere.

So, you're a vegan?

Let's take it backwards... were Neandertals profound and trancendent?
Whales? Dogs? Spiders? Earthworms? Amoebae? Bacteria? Organic
molecules? Water molecules?

Certainly, some characteristics that define us as "human", such as
creativity, love, hate, etc are either not present in "lower" animals
or are present to a much less complex degree. I would argue that those
characteristics that you use to place humans in a "special" category
are nothing more than manifestations of our complexity.

Fast forward 100 million years and it's very likley that some future
form of life may surpass human complexity and then humans will find
themselves a "lower" animal.

I think you're being incredibly optimistic to think that we'll be around in
100 million years.

todd

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

But having a totalitarian state with as much economic and
military might as the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

You're more or less restating my point. Beyond that, I'd be
interested to hear some realistic thoughts on how it might play
out.

Here's one scenario.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/...ton020905.html


Interesting article. Thank-you. I'm not entirely sure how realistic or
probable it is, but it's certainly a point to consider.

I'm not sure it's realistic, either. However, at least some of the
money China has loaned to the US government was once in the pockets of
American consumers.

Rick

Java Man wrote:

I'm not sure it's realistic, either. However, at least some of
the money China has loaned to the US government was once in the
pockets of American consumers.

Maybe this is a simplistic way to look at it, but there are huge
variations in standards of living throughout the world. I think what's
going on is a little "evening out" and I'm not sure that's such a bad
thing.

Joe Barta

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

SNIP

In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.



I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.



No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe
(as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.

The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows
directly from the definition of Science. An understanding
that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may
define a discipline that includes Science and considerations
outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline
should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one
insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a
new name to the old discipline.

Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics
is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.


I think perhaps we are talking past each other here. I only meant
that the *efficacy* of Reason is presumed by Science.

I understood. That is why I disagree.

Science does not presume Reason to be sufficient. Science
is defined such that reason is sufficient

That is,
Science presumes Reason to be efficacious and thus sufficient to do
_everything Science wants to do_ (not that Reason is sufficient for
everything in general).

I do not agree that Science wants. Perhpas this is the crux
of our disagreement.

If this were not so, Science would be
looking to add other mechanisms for knowledge acquisition like
the IDers suggest should be done. But Science clearly is *not*
looking for other such mechanism - it presumes Reason to be sufficient
to its task.

Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
of medicine is not, itself, science.

--

FF

wrote:

SNIP

Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
of medicine is not, itself, science.


'Just curious - do you believe that the definition of Science is
immutable and that Science cannot exist with any definition other
than the current one (To your claim: Science and Reason are isomorphic).
I believe that the definition of Science can change and we'll potentially
can still have Science. I rather think that's more the point where
we differ than anything...

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

On 2/13/2006 8:55 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
Odinn wrote:

On 2/13/2006 1:34 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
[ snipped the majority, just going to hit on one point here ]


Your question has no simple answer, nor is there any "proof" - see my
earlier post about the non-provability of axiomatic starting points. All
I can give you is *my* take on it. You may- or may not find it
responsive. Note that I am not trying to convert you or sell you
anything here, I am merely responding to your question in the only way I
can. I am a Theist - someone who believes in an Author - for several
reasons:

1) Step back from the detail of biology, physics, or any of modern
science
and look at the Whole Picture we see so far - The Universe taken as
whole. I know of no example *within* that Universe we're looking at
where Something comes from Nothing. All Somethings have a First
Cause -
another Something or Someone that brought them into being. It thus
seems reasonable to infer that the Universe itself had a First Cause.

The fact that anything exists implies it came
from somewhere/someone/somehow.


Okay, so what is the First Cause for a god? Using your distinction
above, all somethings (god is a something) have a first cause. So
there is a first cause for god, where's the first cause for this
something that created god? Where's the first cause for this
something that created the something that created god? Where's the
first cause for......?


I hope this answers your question...


Nope, see my question(s) above.


Go back and reread 2c and 2d for my take on this.


I did. It still doesn't match. You can't say you have to have a First
Cause, then at some arbitrary point say it isn't needed. Either a First
Cause is needed for everything, or the universe doesn't need a First Cause.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNIP

Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
of medicine is not, itself, science.


'Just curious - do you believe that the definition of Science is
immutable and that Science cannot exist with any definition other
than the current one (To your claim: Science and Reason are isomorphic).
I believe that the definition of Science can change and we'll potentially
can still have Science. I rather think that's more the point where
we differ than anything...


I believe the meanings of words can change so that someday the
word 'science' may mean something different than it does today.
The discipline itself, as presently defined, will still exist, at least

as an intellectual construct, even if there are no longer any
practitioners.
Certainly today the word itself mans different things to different
people.
I suspect you understand the esotheric definion presumed by my
remarks.

A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now
the same word is the name of a machine.

If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical
composition we would have something quite different from what
we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate
to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer
scientist?

A couple of centuries ago "Natural Philosophy" was the name
of the discipline we now call physics. My guess would be that
if someone were to use the term "Natural Philosophy" for a
current intellectual pursuit it would not be in any way an
outgrowth of the Natural Philosophy of the 18th century.

If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa
is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for
example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for
'science fiction')

--

FF

Odinn wrote:

On 2/13/2006 8:55 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:

Odinn wrote:

On 2/13/2006 1:34 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
[ snipped the majority, just going to hit on one point here ]


Your question has no simple answer, nor is there any "proof" - see my
earlier post about the non-provability of axiomatic starting points.
All
I can give you is *my* take on it. You may- or may not find it
responsive. Note that I am not trying to convert you or sell you
anything here, I am merely responding to your question in the only
way I
can. I am a Theist - someone who believes in an Author - for several
reasons:

1) Step back from the detail of biology, physics, or any of modern
science
and look at the Whole Picture we see so far - The Universe taken as
whole. I know of no example *within* that Universe we're looking at
where Something comes from Nothing. All Somethings have a First
Cause -
another Something or Someone that brought them into being. It thus
seems reasonable to infer that the Universe itself had a First
Cause.

The fact that anything exists implies it came
from somewhere/someone/somehow.



Okay, so what is the First Cause for a god? Using your distinction
above, all somethings (god is a something) have a first cause. So
there is a first cause for god, where's the first cause for this
something that created god? Where's the first cause for this
something that created the something that created god? Where's the
first cause for......?


I hope this answers your question...


Nope, see my question(s) above.


Go back and reread 2c and 2d for my take on this.


I did. It still doesn't match. You can't say you have to have a First
Cause, then at some arbitrary point say it isn't needed. Either a First
Cause is needed for everything, or the universe doesn't need a First Cause.


Either you have an infinite recursion of first causes or the recursion
terminates. The point is that in either case they are *causal*, thereby
leading to what we see today as the Universe. Absent something like this,
how would explain that anything exists at all?

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

On 13 Feb 2006 11:04:46 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Renata wrote:

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights...

-snip-
In fact, public schools are making a choice based on this l'il ole
amendment - to not support a particular religion's philosophies. It
doesn't make secularism into a religion.

Secularism *most certainly* is a belief system no different in kind
than any other religion. Every time a school chooses a secular
agenda, it chooses an epistemology, a values system, and a particular
point-of-view about the world in which we live. For example,
so-called "multi-culturalism" is a secular values agenda in that it
conciously make no distinctions between the moral "qualities" of
different cultures.

I'm not arguing against secularism here. I'm arguing that you
cannot make choices in a public school setting without embracing
*some* values system and right now the schools have chosen
secular values. This is as offensive to religious people as
choosing Christian values and epistemology would be to an atheist.
There is thus *no* way to run a publicly funded education program
without violating the sensibilities of some significant portion
of the population.

Public schools are prelcuded from picking a particular religious
leaning since all the kids may not espouse that leaning. EVen within
the broad swath of those defined as "Chrisitan" there are sufficient
differences, and that's before adding in the various other flavors of
religion that exist on earth. Therefore, they chose a non-religious
agenda.

What the folks hollering for the introduction of religion to public
schools assume is that it will be their brand of religion that will
prevail.


You want religion in school, there are private, religious institutions
available, many of whom have a better overall education program than
the public schools.
Morals and such should be taught in the home.





Not all religions on this earth espouse this idea of ID and teaching
ID would thus "favor" that particular religion's views.

For the moment, (unless/until ID is established as legitimate Science)
that's right. But espousing a purely matter/mechanical/naturalist
view of knowledge is just as much a statement of belief. In both
cases, these are inbound *assumptions* about how the world operates
based on individual *belief*.

Hardly individual belief. One has evidence, the other has none. ID,
at the moment (and probably forever - you remember this thing called
"faith") is indeed a presonal belief. Zero evidence and no way to
prove any of it's concepts.


You cannot argue against ID being
permitted in the schools on the one hand and on the other defend the
presence of materialist/naturalism on the other - its hypocritical.
Either both belong in the school system (noting that, for the moment,
ID ought not to be taught as "Science") or *neither* belongs in the
school.

-snip-

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

SNIP

SNIP

A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now
the same word is the name of a machine.

If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical
composition we would have something quite different from what
we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate
to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer
scientist?

I take your point, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I realize
that the meaning of words change. But my question had more to do with
the *discipline* called "Science" today. You say that discipline will
likely exist in the at least as an intellectual contruct. I agree. But
do you think that this discipline's essential starting points (whatever
it ends up being called in the future) are immutable? In short, can
"Science" as a construct ever evolve its starting axioms or does doing
so inevitably make it "not Science" in your view?

This question is at the heart of the ID v. Science debate today. The
orthodox Science community insists that you cannot change the predicates
of Science and still have Science. The IDers claim that without their
additions, Science is incomplete. This is an argument of axioms and thus
neither side can "prove" their positions, merely show consqences for
taking or not taking a particular axiom as true. Without respect to the
IDers particular proposals (about which I do not yet have a fully formed
view) I am sympathetic to their basic notion. I find it had to believe
that the philosophy of Science is so well-formed that there can be no
improvement therein while still maintaining the essential discipline we
call "Science". I also acknowledge that I may well be wrong...


SNIP

If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa
is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for
example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for
'science fiction')


A little perjorative, don't you think. "Christian Science" pretty
much has nothing to do with Christianity or Science. Scientology has
nothing to do with Science. Both are Orwellian uses of words.
To me the essential issue is not the name we give things (though I
certainly object to the concious obfuscation of meaning a' la Orwell).
The essential question is one of foundational axioms of a system,
whether they are mutable, and, if so, whether the mutation of these
axioms materially changes the discipline in question. Christianity
embraced Science (however grudgingly and slowly) as a legitimate
source of knowledge but managed to still remain, well, Christianity.
One wonders if the inverse situtation is possible ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On a related note, how 'bout garlic from China?

How can it be more efficient to buy garlic from a place more than
twice the distance as Watson(?), CA (if you're on the East coast)?

Renata

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:57:01 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are
quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then
they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy
cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin
oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for
$1.50 less per box.

I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart
when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're
buying the more expensive box?"

I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."

He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as
well.

One box of oranges at a time...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Public schools need to be abolished pure and simple.

I'm sure you have ideas on how and why abolishing public schools would
be beneficial, but can you think of reasons why it might be a bad idea
or do more harm than good?

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Public schools need to be abolished pure and simple.


I'm sure you have ideas on how and why abolishing public schools would
be beneficial, but can you think of reasons why it might be a bad idea
or do more harm than good?

Joe Barta

Nope. Public Schools are a madrassas for secular ideology that pretends
it is "netural". They are propped up by a teacher's union that takes one
of the most critical professions in our society and turns it into factory
work. They are funded at a point of a gun, and people who object to
their values are then forced to pay *again* to have their children
educated within a values context they affirm. Because the schools
are funded by public monies, no one can be excluded, not even the violent,
the disruptive, or the dangerous student. (The Columbine massacre would
likely not happened in a private school because the perpetrators had
a record of misbehavior that would have gotten then kicked out long
before they had the opportunity to kill their peers.) Because the
schools are publicly funded, every 3rd-rate politican and political
bottomfeeder gets a voice in what the content, quality, and mission
of education ought to be. That's how you get both the vile belching
of Political Correctness AND the pressure of the Religious Right all
in the same system. In short, the system is broken, dishonest,
and dysfunctional.

The only question is just *how* to back out of the public school mess
we have today. Clearly there are teachers (many/most) worth keeping
and you cannot just pull the rug out from under the system as it is.
My feeling is that the Federal government should get out of the education
business, giving everyone involved, say, 5 years notice, and decreasing
Federal educational funding (and taxation) 20% per year. This would
give the local governments time to ramp up to accomodate it. This would
put big pressure on the local governments to either outsource or privatize
the schools. Would there be problems? Probably. But I cannot
imagine a situation worse than what we have today: Expensive, Ineffective,
and (in many cases) Dangerous schools.

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Public schools need to be abolished pure and simple.

My feeling is that the Federal government should get out
of the education business

This would give the local governments time to ramp
up to accomodate it.

This would put big pressure on the local
governments to either outsource or privatize the schools.

Ok, I'm little confused. Let me see if I understand your point of
view...

a) Public schools should be abolished.

b) The federal govt should get out of the education business.

c) It should be a local govt matter

d) Local governments should take responsibility for education but
outsource it... OR... preferrably get out of the education business
altogether.

e) Ideally all education should be done in the home by parents or in
private schools and there should be no public involvement in education
whatsoever. The government's role in educating our youth should be no
bigger a priority than the government's role in doll collecting.

f) Since the government's (federal, state or local) role in education
is ideally zero, the government should also not attempt to set any
standards for educational proficiency. It's a purely market driven
matter.

I may have taken a few liberties, but do I understand you correctly?

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Public schools need to be abolished pure and simple.


My feeling is that the Federal government should get out
of the education business


This would give the local governments time to ramp
up to accomodate it.


This would put big pressure on the local
governments to either outsource or privatize the schools.


Ok, I'm little confused. Let me see if I understand your point of
view...

a) Public schools should be abolished.

Ideally, yes ... over time and in the best practical way so
as not to create a tidal wave of problems for a society already
addicted to public education.


b) The federal govt should get out of the education business.

The sooner the better. Even if the States and Municipalities
staying the public education business, the simple act of getting
the Feds out would be an enormous improvement to what we have today.


c) It should be a local govt matter

At *most* a local government matter.


d) Local governments should take responsibility for education but
outsource it... OR... preferrably get out of the education business
altogether.

Again, ideally the case.


e) Ideally all education should be done in the home by parents or in
private schools and there should be no public involvement in education
whatsoever. The government's role in educating our youth should be no
bigger a priority than the government's role in doll collecting.

Yup. The only exception to this is the exception that always exists: If
the treatment of minor children constitutes child abuse, then the
government has to interdict. Ideally, childrens' care is an issue
entirely for parents and non of the Government's business. But when
parents fail in that obligation, Government has the legitimate role of
speaking on behalf of the minor citizen who is legally presumed to be
unable to act in their own interest (at least not completely so). This
should be a choice of last resort. Say a parent is conciously failing to
educate a child and Government has to remove them from that home. The
answer is not to place them in a public home and educate them
publicly. The answer is to work with private-sector charities to find
an appropriate accomodation. We've been doing some of this for years and
it works. There used to be Government-run orphanages which were just
horror shows. Now most States work to find private placement for
children with people who will actually care for them. It is an imprefect
solution but better than totally collectivizing the whole process.



f) Since the government's (federal, state or local) role in education
is ideally zero, the government should also not attempt to set any
standards for educational proficiency. It's a purely market driven
matter.

Yup.

I may have taken a few liberties, but do I understand you correctly?

Yup.

Joe Barta


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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Say a parent is conciously failing to educate a child and
Government has to remove them from that home.

If the government is out of the education business and the educational
standards business, then who is determining if the parent is failing
to educate the child and where are they getting their standards?

Further, the masses being as they are, using your method, I envision a
scenario where there are great gulfs between a relatively small number
of educated and large numbers of uneducated (a hundred fold what it is
now), and that the limited government interdiction you propose above
would be largely unable to control the deteriorating situation.

Can you at least get behind the idea that some sort of public
involvement in education, despite all of its shortcomings, is the best
way possible to raise the education level of the masses, and that the
removal of public involvement would effectively "dumb us down"? That
if we value the idea of and strength of a "middle class", your vision
(in it's most strict form) would erode that middle class and we would
gravitate more towards a small, affluent and educated elite and masses
of poor and uneducated?

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Say a parent is conciously failing to educate a child and
Government has to remove them from that home.


If the government is out of the education business and the educational
standards business, then who is determining if the parent is failing
to educate the child and where are they getting their standards?

It's a fair question just like "What constitutes abuse?" (Corporal
punishment, not being able to stay up past 10pm, ...?). The most
likely answer would be the one we have today - the courts would
decide what constituted a reasonable level of education.


Further, the masses being as they are, using your method, I envision a
scenario where there are great gulfs between a relatively small number
of educated and large numbers of uneducated (a hundred fold what it is
now), and that the limited government interdiction you propose above
would be largely unable to control the deteriorating situation.

1) You underestimate "the masses" - they will do what is in their
own self-interest sooner or later. The only reason you (and I)
fear this scenario is that we've been so conditioned by the
academic Elites to believe they are the sole instrument of success.
Long before there was K-12, Undergrad, and Grad School, there
were trade schools that taught people useful skills (rather than, say,
degrees in Women's Studies). These would, no doubt, spring up again.

2) Big Eeeeeeeeeevill Corporations cannot afford an illiterate work
force. They need capable people to carry forth their Eeeeeeeeevil
agenda. No doubt, if there actually was a significant failure
of the private sector to educate most people, corporations would
start training them and treat it like a benefit of the job no
different than, say, healthcare.

3) You underestimate the power of markets. If there is a need,
someone pretty much always finds a way to fill it (at some price).
Say there was the "great gulf" in the educational marketplace.
Then some clever entreupeneur would find a way to bring education
to the (presumably) economic underclass - or at least enough of it
to make a dent in their needs. How do I know this? Because
this takes place daily in areas like lending, insurance, and so on.
There are companies that *specialize* in lending to high credit risk
customers, for example. This became necessary when all the social
do-gooders got laws passed that prevented redlining in poor neighborhoods.
So, the mainstream banks left, and the high-credit-risk lenders came
in. Credit is still available to these customers, but they have to
pay a higher interest rate in reflection of their higher risk
status.

4) But say you're right - that this idea leads to Haves and Have-Nots
of education. How is this worse than what we have today? If you
live in an affluent community, the schools are usually much better
than in the inner city. A good many inner city schools manage to
spend billions without ever educating almost any student because of
the "must serve all" environment that prevents them from kicking out
the obstacles to progress and the unions with their "No Teacher Left
Behind" plan. The issue before us is not one of Good or Bad but
Better or Worse. We have Worse now, I want Better.


Can you at least get behind the idea that some sort of public
involvement in education, despite all of its shortcomings, is the best
way possible to raise the education level of the masses, and that the
removal of public involvement would effectively "dumb us down"? That

No. US culture (and I suspect most Western democracies) are a lot
"dumber" already than you're acknowledging. Watch what passes for
"entertainment", "news", and "information" on TV - the single most
promiscuous vector of our culture. It's nauseating. For all the
billions poured into education, look at the rate of graduation of US
citizens from top-tier graduate programs. Listen to grammar, clarity,
and general execution of language you hear everywhere - at work, the
grocery store, at the pub. We've become a post-literate society, in part
thanks to the fine job government education has done.

I taught grad school briefly and had this reinforced over and over
again. My foreign students were not "smarter" they just worked *much*
harder than most of my US-born students. You know why? Because the US
students took it all for granted - getting an "education" was assumed
and it was assumed to be relatively pain free (boy did some of them
squeal when they ran into me My foreign students knew better; they
knew education was a privilege earned. It is exactly this sense of
entitlement that gets built with government money and it is exactly that
sense of entitlement that corrupts the academic process

if we value the idea of and strength of a "middle class", your vision
(in it's most strict form) would erode that middle class and we would
gravitate more towards a small, affluent and educated elite and masses
of poor and uneducated?

First of all, the middle class is declining because it is moving *up*.
There are (inflation adjusted) more wealthy people per capita then ever.
Second of all, census by census, the per capita rate of poverty is
declining. Just one example. In the early 1960s, a staggering percentage
of Black Americans were considered impoverished. Today, a significant
majority (well over 50% IIRC) are middle class or better. The point is
that the vector here is North, not South *even in the face of crappy
schools*. If our dysfunctional education system (which
more-or-less-fails the impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a
successful culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could
do.


As always, (All) Collectivism Kills, (Honest) Markets Bring Good Things.

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

SNIP

SNIP

A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now
the same word is the name of a machine.

If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical
composition we would have something quite different from what
we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate
to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer
scientist?

I take your point, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I realize
that the meaning of words change. But my question had more to do with
the *discipline* called "Science" today. You say that discipline will
likely exist in the at least as an intellectual contruct. I agree. But
do you think that this discipline's essential starting points (whatever
it ends up being called in the future) are immutable? In short, can
"Science" as a construct ever evolve its starting axioms or does doing
so inevitably make it "not Science" in your view?

Doing so inevitable makes it nonScience because those starting
points are precisely what differentiates Science from nonScience.

Were it not so, there would be not even a pretense of an objective
basis with which to differentiate Science from nonScience.


...

SNIP

If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa
is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for
example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for
'science fiction')


A little perjorative, don't you think. "Christian Science" pretty
much has nothing to do with Christianity or Science. Scientology has
nothing to do with Science.

Hence my 'ditto'.

Quite a bit of successful Science fiction is written simply by taking
a traditional story and presenting it in a futuristic scenario. E.g.
the movie _Forbidden Planet_ based on Shakespeare's _The Tempest_
or one of the all-time favorite Star Trek episodes _Balance of Terror_
based on the movie _The Enemy Below_.

Hubbard simply took tradional religious concepts like demonic
posession, restated them in the parlance of Science Fiction but
then made the result into a Religion instead of a literary work.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

If our
dysfunctional education system (which more-or-less-fails the
impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a successful
culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could do.

Let me ask you further, what would you hope to achieve by implementing
a "better" system? What is better? How would we know it was better?
What are the benefits of better?

Joe Barta

TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

"Enoch Root"
So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
surrounding IDs birth?

I'd hardly call a decision to trust in my faith in God a Creationst
conspiracy.

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?

That's not a valid conceren unless you hold to a faith that does not promise
a future.

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?

Science has proven true now what will someday become a "they use to
believe..." just as the past historians and philosophers theories and
testable facts are dismissed today. The study of this subject would serve
well our current students.

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

Nope. We still have too many variables to solve.

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

What motive? All ID'ers want is that the whole process is discussed and
from that discussion, an individual can make an informed decision. The
evolutionists of today are as bad as the Spanish Inquisitionists. Think my
way or suffer the consequences. Absolutely no tolerance for other points of
view.

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?

As to the creation of everything, there is no real hard science,
verifability or logic. All there is, is conjecture. Modern science has yet
to determine, without doubt, an answer to the simplest of questions. Why is
there life?

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

The incorporeal ream of evolutionists and some of the ID'rs troubles me a
little. However, my faith is cemented in my understanding that the work of
science has nothing to do with the current consensus. Consensus is strictly
political. True science is not. In science consensus is meaningless. The
only truth and relevancy provable and reproducible facts.
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus." Michael Crichton, 2003 CalTech lecture.

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.



I love science. I trust in God. I'm promised an answer. This not a non
sequitur.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Teamcasa wrote:
...

What motive?

DAGS "Wedge Document".

--

FF

Teamcasa wrote:
...

What motive?

Ignoring all other points FF replied:
DAGS "Wedge Document".

So what? Do you think that the DI speaks for all the people that believe in
God? Its hard to imagine that the entire body of academia trusts solely
modern science without dissent? There must be a balance. After all, what
frightens the evolutionists so much that they are un-willing to have all of
the information available discussed without healthy debate?

Dave
An old solid oak tree is just a nut that refused to give up.
Back to woodworking.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

In article , Renata
wrote:

On a related note, how 'bout garlic from China?

How can it be more efficient to buy garlic from a place more than
twice the distance as Watson(?), CA (if you're on the East coast)?

If people buy local, then imports will decline.

I choose to participate in the market economy by making informed,
concious decisions about who gets my money.

djb

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

If people buy local, then imports will decline.

I choose to participate in the market economy by making informed,
concious decisions about who gets my money.

Can't argue with that.

Or maybe I can ;-) You can only do that in a VERY limited way. And
even then it's probably more huff and puff than anything else. I could
probably go through your house and find tons of stuff that 1) are made
in or have parts made in what you might consider an undesirable
country, and 2) find tons of stuff that you really don't know where
it's been made and 3) it's made somewhere you don't approve of, but
doing without it is not something you'd "choose".

Joe Barta

Teamcasa wrote:
TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

"Enoch Root"

So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy

surrounding IDs birth?


I'd hardly call a decision to trust in my faith in God a Creationst
conspiracy.

I should hope not. Neither would I. But there was one surrounding
the ID "movement". That's what I was referring to, and I was hoping you
could tell me what you know about it and how you dealt with it when you
made your decision.

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?


That's not a valid conceren unless you hold to a faith that does not promise
a future.

But it is when you set it up as an alternative to a theory to be taught
in schools... science has as a practical goal to explain the nature of
the universe, but if the questions being asked don't lead to more
understanding then what is the merit? It isn't the intention to deny
you a spiritual worldview when these limitations are placed on science:
for that you have other disciplines.

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?


Science has proven true now what will someday become a "they use to
believe..." just as the past historians and philosophers theories and
testable facts are dismissed today. The study of this subject would serve
well our current students.

That's true, but the theories of the past have always 1) had as a goal
to explain the universe 2) provide a framework to test its validity, 3)
were modified when they weren't found to be in accord with the world,
and 4) competed with other theories on even footing.

This isn't true of ID: it doesn't have to explain the world beyond
pointing a finger at an invisible and unknowable builder to explain all
unknown phenomena, and is being injected into the educational system by
political means, not through scientific testing.

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?


Nope. We still have too many variables to solve.

It's not fair or rational to ask that the ToE be able to explain the
origins of life. There will always be too many, that's why you have to
break it down into manageable chunks.

That sounds a lot like a surrender, if you don't mind my saying.

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?


What motive? All ID'ers want is that the whole process is discussed and
from that discussion, an individual can make an informed decision. The
evolutionists of today are as bad as the Spanish Inquisitionists. Think my
way or suffer the consequences. Absolutely no tolerance for other points of
view.

The motive of the ID proponents that began the whole Dover scandal.
Have you read about what they've done?

The evolutionists only ask that ID, if it is to be regarded as a theory
of Science, also be required to follow the same rules as science. There
is no Inquisition. It is in fact the IDers that are using cynical
political manipulations to inject their ideology into the school system.
I think it is also possible they are being aided by nihilcons, as well.

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?


As to the creation of everything, there is no real hard science,
verifability or logic. All there is, is conjecture. Modern science has yet
to determine, without doubt, an answer to the simplest of questions. Why is
there life?

Conjecture is a different thing entirely. Creation is the crux of the
ID movement, though, that is true. Unfortunately, the IDers are waging
war for their creationism against an evolution that has nothing to do
with creation.

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?


The incorporeal ream of evolutionists and some of the ID'rs troubles me a
little. However, my faith is cemented in my understanding that the work of
science has nothing to do with the current consensus. Consensus is strictly
political. True science is not. In science consensus is meaningless. The
only truth and relevancy provable and reproducible facts.
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus." Michael Crichton, 2003 CalTech lecture.

Thank goodness science is not political! (well, but it is in an entirely
irrelevant academic way... but I digress Consensus in science is the
crucible for all new theories... take it as a good, and if there is any
validity to ID, test it against that. If it's a good theory...

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.

I love science. I trust in God. I'm promised an answer. This not a non
sequitur.

If you love science, why would you allow ID to be elevated as a theory
through political pressure and not require that it survive the same
critique required of scientific theories?

er
--
email not valid