Elsie_T wrote:To dismiss Professor Johnston because he is the 'Father of Intelligent Design' but then worship the 'Father of Evolution' to me smells of hypocrisy.
I don't worship anyone. You're spewing invective all over the place here because you've been disagreed with. Your reaction stinks to high heaven of the self-righteous indignation of the rejected religionist fanatic. You badly need to get a grip. I have little inclination to continue a conversation with someone who erects strawmen, willfully misconstrues what i've written and addresses me with snide vituperation. No one prevents you from questioning anything. And no one is obliged to take you seriously for unquestioning adherence to religious dogma while you demand that the work of those using the scientific method be questioned.
JamesMorrison wrote:.
georgeob1 has informed us that
Quote:I don't think the "top down" & "bottom up" metaphors carry much water. Certainly they don't prove anything. The mystery of our existence is quite unexplained by science. While it is both understandable and proper for science, at the boundaries of what is known, to seek explanations within the context of its theories, the fact remains that science cannot coherently explain the origins of the universe (or multiverse). There is no "scientific" basis whatever on which one can deny the proposition that the universe had a creator
Quote:There is no "scientific" basis whatever on which one can deny the proposition that the universe had a creator.
is truth condensed in a mere mortal's (like myself) sentence. So why are those that propose Intelligent Design so defensive?
JM
I unreservedly accept the scientific method as the best we've got. My education and a good deal of my professional life involve science. I do not place any a priori limits on what science might undertake, but I do recognize the boundaries to that which science is able to explain or model. and what (at present) it cannot. Science offers persuasive estimates for the ages of the universe, the sun, and the earth, along with a partial explanation for the evolution of the cosmos. However fundamental unresolved questions remain (hence my reference to dark matter, magnetic monopoles, and the rest), and nothing at all is offered with respect to the origin of the space-time & energy that started it all, or the multiple quantum trajectories it might take.
Lola has offered the question that (to paraphrase) 'If one can accept the proposition of a creator of the universe, why not also consider the possibility of a cosmos that has always existed and always will?' On that we agree: the two propositions are equally outside science and equally able to address what science cannot. Moreover, I posit that the two propositions are more or less equivalent. This is all quite Scholastic, and I'm sure that Thomas Aquinas would be pleased with Lola in this - she has named the uncaused cause.
We are all confronted with the mysteries of our own consciousnesses, and the ultimate isolation that confronts us. How we deal with it intellectually, spiritually, and even psychologically is our own affair. It has led me to consider certain possibilities concerning the Creator. I can't prove them, and you can't refute them. It is indeed a 'Leap of Faith' - however so are the alternatives.
"However so are the alternatives."
Science does not attempt to teach that there is or there is not a creator. What the IDers would have is that science instruction in school begin to teach that there may be a creator, based on a supposition about the possible nature of the uncaused cause. All of this at a time when the young people to be so taught haven't a clue what your references to Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism mean. All of this at a time when those young people have never in their schooling been give the critical skills to examine such a complex and emotionally fraught proposition.
Conservatives, by and large are those who advocate ID. They also sneer about a nanny society in which people expect the state to do everything for them. Leaving aside the absurdity and self-serving nature of such a contention, that is precisely what is proposed in the ID controversy. If parents want their children to believe in a creator, then they can teach them at home. They can name the uncaused cause, and explain why they are at varience with others about the nature of the particular dogma which they embrace.
The alternative is that a narrow view of christianity (it is by no means certain that the IDers are going to offer something palatable to non-christian religionists) in the setting of a course in science, without the careful guidance on such an issue which should only come from the parents.
Whoa! Calm down Setanta! I would have thought that after 22, 952 postings in this forum you would have grown a considerably thicker hide.
I don't believe I've been too harsh on you, merely asked you to back up what you think everyone should blindly believe. I was also trying to demonstrate that many people who propagate evolution approach theories such as Intelligent Design with their own dogma and biases, yet they refuse to admit this.
No where have I stated that I adhere to a religious belief of any sort, yet you immediately label me as such because I disagree with what you purport to be fact. (Or maybe because I am more open than you are to theories involving the possibility of a designer).
As for Thomas- I believe you have me confused with someone else- I hadn't even joined this topic at page 62.
There is nothing wrong with speculating about intelligent design in a religion or philosophy class.
However, for intelligent design to be included in a science curiculum, there must first be an objective method by which design in biological evolution can be differentiated from naturally occurring processes.
Elsie_T wrote:Whoa! Calm down Setanta! I would have thought that after 22, 952 postings in this forum you would have grown a considerably thicker hide.
Yeah, i get that all the time from people who think i shouldn't object to their sneers.
Quote:I don't believe I've been too harsh on you, merely asked you to back up what you think everyone should blindly believe.
I haven't asked you or anyone else to believe anything, blindly or otherwise. This sort of projection is common among religionists, who do have an agenda to foist their beliefs on others. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe. I have pointing out what i'm not prepared to believe because of the ludicrous nature of the proposition, and the lack of credible evidence.
Quote:I was also trying to demonstrate that many people who propagate evolution approach theories such as Intelligent Design with their own dogma and biases, yet they refuse to admit this.
I don't "propagate" anything. I find the explanations provided by a theory of evolution more plausible than anything else i've read, and especially the dishonest statements of IDers, who specialize in misquoting genuine authority, quoting them out of context and willfully falsifying statements about the significance of data. I don't dogmatically adhere to any belief, and in the end, science is not a belief, it's a method, an investigative tool.
Quote:No where have I stated that I adhere to a religious belief of any sort, yet you immediately label me as such because I disagree with what you purport to be fact. (Or maybe because I am more open than you are to theories involving the possibility of a designer).
I've not purported anything to be fact other than statements about myself--so have the courtesy not to construct strawmen by lying about what i've written here. My position all along is that a theory of evolution provides the most plausible explanation for the rise of diverse life forms on this planet. If your designer is not a deity, then i could accept that you are not religiously motivated. In which case, just what do you purport the designer to be?
georgeob wrote:
Quote:Lola has offered the question that (to paraphrase) 'If one can accept the proposition of a creator of the universe, why not also consider the possibility of a cosmos that has always existed and always will?' On that we agree: the two propositions are equally outside science and equally able to address what science cannot. Moreover, I posit that the two propositions are more or less equivalent. This is all quite Scholastic, and I'm sure that Thomas Aquinas would be pleased with Lola in this - she has named the uncaused cause
Damn! And I had the idea I thought that up on my own. Oh well, I suppose I should take comfort in not being alone. I had so hoped to be the center of the Universe. The uncaused cause has no center. That's the difference in the two theories, george. One is more plausible than the other.
Belief in God is personal. There's nothing wrong with talking about personal beliefs or teaching them to our children. But there is a great wrong in teaching it in a science classroom. If it is taught as science, then it's not science class anymore. It's religion class disguised as science. And where's your concern for equal time in religion? Comparative religion is a fine course for high schoolers.........so why aren't we advocating that? Because comparative religion, like philosophy will threaten to teach young people how to think for themselves. Isn't that the point of education?
It seems to me that if IDers get their wish, it leaves the door open for all types of religious fanaticism, some of which we are at "war" with at this moment. The idea is so very illogical it can only be called superstitious.
Actually george, I have to take back my insult. Your post was so reasonable, I thought JamesMorrison was the author.
So we agree then? Science and the scientific method should be taught in the science classroom and creationism aka Intelligent Design should be taught in a comparative religion course.......or at home and the church of your choice.
However I differ with the term "uncaused cause" because my theory postulates that there is no cause. A cause implies a purpose. And on what basis do we need to assign purpose? I can understandn that a purposeless universe seems upsetting to some. But wanting to have a purpose is not a good reason to suppose there is one. I sympathize with those who find it difficult to provide their own purpose, but not so much that I can agree that it should be made to sound like science. The cosmos just is. If you want to call it God, fine. But don't confuse methphor for reality. There's a real danger in that. The no cause idea seems plausible to me. As a matter of fact, it's the only explanation I can truly believe in.
Elsie_T wrote: As for Thomas- I believe you have me confused with someone else- I hadn't even joined this topic at page 62.
You're right, I was wrong. I had confused you with adele_g. I apologize.
Nevertheless, I would be interested in hearing your answer to that question too, if you don't mind.
ElsieT and georgeob- We can sit and listen at your feet to your explanations as to where (at what point) does a little science enter the Intelligent Design proposition.
Georegeob-you post cosmological factoids and I fail to see what any of them (monopoles etc), have to do with ID? AM I missing something ? or is there a little hokus pokus being attempted here?
As far as Phil E Johnson being the "father of ID", HA HA. He was a trial lawyer who decided to make the talk show circuit by imposing a legalistic argument on Darwin. He may have inherited the title , but hes hardly the father. Im sure his ego likes the title. The man, in action, is a train wreck. He has no knowledge beside debate techniques at his side. Hes been taken neatly apart by scientists in open discussions on talk shows in the 90s and , when Behe's book became the flavor of the month, Johnsons been given "perfesser" status at tyhe DISCOVERY INSTITUTE (which, by the way, has no formal accredidation anywhere).
Since ID has absolutely no science base from which to even take potshots at, Im sure that its proponents are quite happy, because they do sit under the radar of mainstream science.
I saw that in this AMs NYT theres another in the series of ID v Science. Many of the arguments for clotting blood, eyes, and flagella had been mentioned in the same manner that weve discussed them here but , Id seen that a piece of additional info regrading how some lower vertebrates dont have the full "cascade" of enzymes that promote blood clotting. Yet the train of enzymes (minus the full complement that promotes clotting) is complete to about 15 . The remaining 4 or 5 , MArgulis has , in the past, stated , are those that were picked up by ingestion and incorporation of micro organisms that, together with the host, act in a symbiotic arrangement.
The thing that just bothers me about scientists as professed IDers, is that,through their careers, they practice the discipline of the scientific method and exact rigorous proofs of their hypotheses. Then, as an IDer, they just drop the entire practise and state , like that cartoon "Then here a miracle happens"
I guess, Ill be more amenable to data discussions with Iders when they have some.
Their argument about a designed Universe doesnt hold water, because it isnt perfectly ordered, anymore than crystals arent ordered exept as a general "bauplan"
Their other argument that science has no explanation for the origins of life, should not conclude with a >>>"Therefore a miracle happens".
Since just about everything that evolution and natural selection has attempted to predict, has been shown to be true (the few exceptions are for creatures that have remained essentially the same for long geologic periods), makes me feel that science is on a waay firmer footing by the demand for more data , than are the IDers , who dont wish to be bothered by data at all.
I'm still not sure how the following information refutes ID, but there's an interesting article in today's San Jose Merc about "Scientists mixing, matching basic DNA building blocks." "They're called "synthetic biologists" and they boldly claim the ability to make never-before-seen living things, one genetic molecule at a time. They're mixing, matching and stacking DNA's chemical components like microscopic Lego blocks in a effort to make biologiccally based computers, medcines, and alternative energy source."
I believe this is going to be the next science-technology that will grow by leaps and bounds - along with our economy.
farmerman wrote:DISCOVERY INSTITUTE (which, by the way, has no formal accredidation anywhere)
The Discovery Institute has the same accreditation as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
If not mentioned earlier here...a well written book on the personalities, history and strategies of the ID movement can be found in Esther Kaplan's "With God On Their Side".
Setanta wrote:"However so are the alternatives."
Science does not attempt to teach that there is or there is not a creator. What the IDers would have is that science instruction in school begin to teach that there may be a creator, based on a supposition about the possible nature of the uncaused cause. All of this at a time when the young people to be so taught haven't a clue what your references to Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism mean. All of this at a time when those young people have never in their schooling been give the critical skills to examine such a complex and emotionally fraught proposition.
However given the absence of Philosophy in any form in the High School curriculum, it would be equally unfortunate to give those immature minds. as you say, lacking the needed critical skills, an undue indoctrination in materialism, merely by default. It has taken a great deal of argument on this thread to get even an brief, transitory acknowledgment of the intrinsic limitations of science in this area. Imagine what the NEA and the AFT would do with carte blanche.
Again, I don't object to the teaching of evolution in biology classes. I would object to any attempt to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible - or any religious text, as a substitute, or alternative to contemporary scientific theory. However I strongly object to the effective (or by default) advocacy of materialism, merely by the definition of what is included and excluded from secondary school curricula. I believe it is this issue that motivates most of the public resistance on this matter.
Lola wrote:
Damn! And I had the idea I thought that up on my own. Oh well, I suppose I should take comfort in not being alone. I had so hoped to be the center of the Universe. The uncaused cause has no center. That's the difference in the two theories, george. One is more plausible than the other.
I think that Thomas Aquinas considered that an uncaused cause and an infinite regression of cause and effect were logically equivalent and equally beyond our understanding. An infinite and eternal universe has no center either. (Moreover, the fact that it gets dark at night proves that such a universe does not exist.)
Quote: Belief in God is personal. There's nothing wrong with talking about personal beliefs or teaching them to our children. But there is a great wrong in teaching it in a science classroom. If it is taught as science, then it's not science class anymore. It's religion class disguised as science. And where's your concern for equal time in religion? Comparative religion is a fine course for high schoolers.........so why aren't we advocating that? Because comparative religion, like philosophy will threaten to teach young people how to think for themselves. Isn't that the point of education?
It seems to me that if IDers get their wish, it leaves the door open for all types of religious fanaticism, some of which we are at "war" with at this moment. The idea is so very illogical it can only be called superstitious.
I don't think that "comparative religion" would teach students to think for themselves nearly as well as would a grounding in the basics of philosophy and an encounter with the basic questions of material and spiritual values. Unfortunately neither are presently done and I see no likelihood of that changing. That leaves the door open for unscientific implications of science to creep in - in the schools, just as they have done on this thread.
Materialist or secular fanaticism is no less fanatic than its religious counterpart. Tolerance is the antidote.
farmerman wrote:Georegeob-you post cosmological factoids and I fail to see what any of them (monopoles etc), have to do with ID? AM I missing something ? or is there a little hokus pokus being attempted here?
Depends on whether you consider ID to embrace the possibility that the universe had a creator or designer. If you restrict the application only to biological evolution, then perhaps you have a point. However, I have gone to great lengths to make clear that my reference was to the origins of the cosmos.
Your reference to my points about dark matter, monopoles, and the defects of string theory as "cosmological factoids" was both misleading and scientifically wrong. These are precisely the salient stunbling blocks in contemporary physics and cosmology. They are most certainly not randomly selected "factoids". The hokus pokus is not mine.
Finally, even if all these serious difficulties are swept away, science has absolutely nothing to say about the initiation of the space-time or mass energy that may have started it all, or about the potential for or impolications of quantum multiverses. I made this point earlier as well. You chose to evade these serious questions with your "factoid" bit. Hardly a scientific response, that.
georgeob1 wrote:However I strongly object to the effective (or by default) advocacy of materialism, merely by the definition of what is included and excluded from secondary school curricula. I believe it is this issue that motivates most of the public resistance on this matter.
Yes, we are all tediously aware of your heroic but lonely struggle against the vast left-wing, secular humanist conspiracy. You're living in Lala Land if you think that's what motivates the majority of people who want to foist ID off on school children. They have an agenda, it's a religious agenda, and all that they have in common with you as you portray your opinion above is that they also believe in the vast, left-wing, secular humanist conspiracy. And that is the parting of the ways, because they don't for a moment : " . . . object to any attempt to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible - or any religious text, as a substitute, or alternative to contemporary scientific theory." That is precisely what they're after.
Quote:The hokus pokus is not mine.
No, the hocus-pocus is that of the IDers, who don't give a rat's ass about contempory understanding of cosmology. Their sole interest is in sneaking a Protestant world view, with complete dogma, in the back door of the school lab. To believe otherwise is either willful blindness, or hopelessly naïve.
By God, Setanta is accusing me of errant fanatic Protestantism (- in addition to a tedious, lonely and 'heroic' struggle against the secular conspiracy). Ranks of long-departed Dominican nuns and Jesuit priests rise up in righteous protest!
I can still remember my childish question, ... and Sister Marcella Anne's answer:
young George -- "Sister, can Protestants go to heaven?"
Sister MA -- "Yes, ..... if they are very good."
Perhaps I am a bit tedious in all this. However, you guys keep inspiring me. Moreover, it seems you have chosen a rather easy target, and ignored equivalent error on the other side.
