97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 11:43 am
Thomas wrote:

Does Canada have religion classes or something like it? I'm wondering where America's extreme polarization on this issue comes from. And I'm speculating that maybe American creationists are dwelling on the fact that metaphysics and the limits of science are worth teaching in school, but American schools have no straightforward framework for teaching it in. Maybe that's why Americans get the full program of creationist activism, while the rest of the world gets only "murmurings", as goodfielder puts it.


I believe Thomas' speculation above is exactly correct. It is far too easy and comforting to assume that "IDers" are necessarily stupid and unlettered. The assumption is not only wrong, but one likely to lead the smug and complacent self-appointed supporters of "science" to serious error.

The rhetorical battles here are usually fought exclusively on the specific ground of biological evolution, ignoring the fact that, in our school system, nothing at all is offered to put the science of biology and evolution in an accurate philosophical context. This leaves the consumers of public education with a de facto indoctrination of their children in a secular materialism that many do not accept and will not tolerate. That is quite obviously the central issue in the public debate, and attempts to deflect it exclusively to the matter of biological evolution lead only to endless dispute, as has amply been demonstrated on this thread.

Lola & Setanta have suggested that my focus on this aspect of things is a manifestation of my "one note" obsession with a supposed secular humanist conspiracy. I don't think there is a conspiracy afoot, but I do believe the manifestation of a world view currently fashionable among the self-appointed elites of the public policy world, combined with the growing proscriptive intrusiveness of government in the affairs of the people, has created this unhappy situation. We should recognize it for what it is and respect the determination of the people to resist government imposed indoctrination in such matters. I have little doubt that the adoption of some grounding of science in the philosophic or metaphysical context in which it properly resides, would defuse most of this conflict. I am equally certain that those same public policy elites would resist this ferociously. .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:01 pm
george, You are assuming that any human endeavor can be perfect. Science is not perfect. If you want perfect, you're not going to find it in any profession or field of study. How we view things must be accomplished through success and failure. Most of our choices are subjective, because nothing is perfect.

What IDers are attempting to do is to equate creationism with evolution. They are not the same to be compared.

There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in religion or phisolophy. Science belongs in an entirely different field of study.

Ethics is another field of study that may be integrated in religion or science. There's a big difference, but it's still subjective. People of religion may have a different understanding of ethics in science, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) allow religious belief to be imposed on those that do not believe in any religion.

Majority rule is not acceptable in such circumstances. Trying to force by politics their religious belief on others is unacceptable.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:06 pm
Cicerone,

The inattainability of perfection has nothing whatever to do with my points above.

You have given us an excellent demonstration of the fact that narrow-minded, authoritarian, dogmatism is not the exclusive province of religious fundamentalists.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:12 pm
It's a matter however of quantity and quality. No one futhers narrow-minded authoritarian dogma so often or so well as the fundatmentalist Protestant and the ultramontane Catholic.

George, you're hilarious sometimes. Do you allege that Lola and i are members of a "public policy elite?" If that is so, by god, somebody owes me a shitload of back pay.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:43 pm
The sky is falling ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little, date of attribution unknown

-- George OB, used without attribution, August, 2005
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:46 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe Thomas' speculation above is exactly correct. It is far too easy and comforting to assume that "IDers" are necessarily stupid and unlettered. The assumption is not only wrong, but one likely to lead the smug and complacent self-appointed supporters of "science" to serious error.

A couple of weeks ago, while exploring a San Francisco bookshop, I hit onto a copy of Michael J. Behe: Darwin's Black Box. I read it diagonally for about an hour, and was astonished how much its style reminded me of The New Yorker's writings on economic policy. Exactly the same combination of eloquence with creationist fallacies. It seems to take well-lettered people to say really silly things.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Majority rule is not acceptable in such circumstances. Trying to force by politics their religious belief on others is unacceptable.

I knew you'd eventually come around to the idea of privatizing the schooling sector, and reducing the role of govenment to providing financial support. Wink

Setanta wrote:
No one futhers narrow-minded authoritarian dogma so often or so well as the fundatmentalist Protestant and the ultramontane Catholic.

That's probably true when you compare evolutionary biologists with theologicians like Schönborn. But I doubt that on the ground level, the differences really matter much. I have met very few people who truly "get" how evolution works. My experience from talking about it with non-biologists, including academics in other natural sciences, is that they usually fall back into creationist fallacies as soon as you approach the subject from any angle different from that in the school books. (As, for example, when you approach it from the angle of how much room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.) Based on this experience, I strongly suspect that most agnostics trust evolutionary biology for the same reason most evangelicals trust creationism: because the authorities they respect tell them to.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 01:02 pm
Thomas-

c.i. can't come round to privatising schools because I tried to persuade him to that months ago and as I'm inane and stupid he's never going to admit that his arguments then were second best to mine.He's on the record and he brooks no criticism.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 01:08 pm
Thomas wrote:
That's probably true when you compare evolutionary biologists with theologicians like Schönborn. But I doubt that on the ground level, the differences really matter much.


How silly of you.

Quote:
I have met very few people who truly "get" how evolution works.


You also have apparently little experience of fundamental Protestants and ultramontane Catholics as they are to be found in the United States.

Quote:
My experience from talking about it with non-biologists, including academics in other natural sciences, is that they usually fall back into creationist fallacies as soon as you approach the subject from any angle different from that in the school books. (As, for example, when you approach it from the angle of how much room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.)


This is a rather muddled statement--perhaps you could expound upon the creationist fallacy with regard to the amount of "room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize."

Quote:
Based on this experience, I strongly suspect that most agnostics trust evolutionary biology for the same reason most evangelicals trust creationism: because the authorities they respect tell them to.


How very elitist and self-congratulatory of you. All together, what a tour de force in "enlightened" European contempt for the ignorant masses of the United States. The followers of religiously fanatical demagogues here are legion in their numbers. The fanatical believers in evolution on a dogmatic basis are paltry in comparison. I strongly suspect that the general run of the population in Germany is no more exempt from your statement than is the case in the United States, and, equally, i suspect that creationism has a much greater appeal in Germany than you are able or willing to recognize.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 01:13 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe Thomas' speculation above is exactly correct. It is far too easy and comforting to assume that "IDers" are necessarily stupid and unlettered. The assumption is not only wrong, but one likely to lead the smug and complacent self-appointed supporters of "science" to serious error.

A couple of weeks ago, while exploring a San Francisco bookshop, I hit onto a copy of Michael J. Behe: Darwin's Black Box. I read it diagonally for about an hour, and was astonished how much its style reminded me of The New Yorker's writings on economic policy. Exactly the same combination of eloquence with creationist fallacies. It seems to take well-lettered people to say really silly things.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Majority rule is not acceptable in such circumstances. Trying to force by politics their religious belief on others is unacceptable.

I knew you'd eventually come around to the idea of privatizing the schooling sector, and reducing the role of govenment to providing financial support. Wink

Setanta wrote:
No one futhers narrow-minded authoritarian dogma so often or so well as the fundatmentalist Protestant and the ultramontane Catholic.

That's probably true when you compare evolutionary biologists with theologicians like Schönborn. But I doubt that on the ground level, the differences really matter much. I have met very few people who truly "get" how evolution works. My experience from talking about it with non-biologists, including academics in other natural sciences, is that they usually fall back into creationist fallacies as soon as you approach the subject from any angle different from that in the school books. (As, for example, when you approach it from the angle of how much room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.) Based on this experience, I strongly suspect that most agnostics trust evolutionary biology for the same reason most evangelicals trust creationism: because the authorities they respect tell them to.



Why you would want to pollute an otherwise reasonable exposition with the inclusion of this unnecessary and absurd sentence....is beyong me. Unless, of course, you were trying to break the cajones of one or two people engaged here!

In which case...stuff it!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 01:46 pm
Setanta wrote:
This is a rather muddled statement--perhaps you could expound upon the creationist fallacy with regard to the amount of "room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize."

I'll give you an example that illustrates my experience well. A few years ago, I listened to a talk at the Siemens Stiftung in Munich, given by Christiane Nüsslein-Volhardt. The talk was about embryology, the field she got a Nobel Prize in. But in the q&a session, the conversation somehow turned to genetic engineering. Three university professors -- two physicists and one electrical engineer -- marvelled on about how genetic engineers might increase the yield of photosynthesis by a multiple. In her responses, Nüsslein-Volhardt repeatedly emphasized that evolution had selected for high-yielding photosynthesis for several billion years, and that this made her very cautious about improving the yield much further. The three questioneers didn't argue against it, they didn't concede her point; they simply marveled on with no sign of understanding what the speaker had just said. These physicists and this engineer were no doubt highly intelligent people with greater scientific literacy than 99% of the general population. Yet they couldn't digest a fairly straightforward point about evolutionary biology. I make observations like this quite frequently, so, arrogant or not, I am very pessimistic about evolutionary biology being widely understood.

Setanta wrote:
How very elitist and self-congratulatory of you.

Can't help it. Everybody has an opinion on evolutionary biology. But when you actually get to know the field, it frequently turns out to be counterintuitive, technical, and generally hard to make sense of. I would neither have studied this field nor minored in it if I hadn't believed it would make me know more about it than the average guy. If you wish to call this attitude elitist, be my guest.

Setanta wrote:
All together, what a tour de force in "enlightened" European contempt for the ignorant masses of the United States.

1) I find this remark interesting, since I hadn't constrained my observations to Americans, nor said a single word to this effect in the post you were replying to. 2) Even if I had expressed contempt for the ignorant masses of the United States, what would be your problem with that? After all, your nation is no more exempt from ridiculing and sneering than Elsie_T's and Adele_G's religion.

Setanta wrote:
I strongly suspect that the general run of the population in Germany is no more exempt from your statement than is the case in the United States, and, equally, i suspect that creationism has a much greater appeal in Germany than you are able or willing to recognize.

1) I'm grossly oversimplifying now, but Germans in general take a back seat to no one when it comes to accepting uncritically what the authorities tell them. I said nothing to the opposite effect in the post you responded to. 2) That said, creationism does play a marginal role in Germany, probably because our authorities don't treat it as a respectable theory. You are always welcome to visit me in Munich and check this out for yourself. Heck, you might even find that I sneer a whole lot less than you think I do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 03:17 pm
Thomas wrote:
I make observations like this quite frequently, so, arrogant or not, I am very pessimistic about evolutionary biology being widely understood.


I am at a loss to know why you seem compelled to defend yourself from a charge of arrogance. Has someone here accused you arrogance? Point him out, i'll bloody his nose for you. By the way, you didn't answer my question, which was: ". . . perhaps you could expound upon the creationist fallacy with regard to the amount of 'room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.'" (Emphasis has been added to demonstrate why it is that i say you have not answered my question.)

The extent to which the principle thesis of evolution, which i have always understood to be descent from common ancestors with modification through natural selection--originally adduced by Darwin and Wallace through morphological comparison and now studied in alleles--is a far different matter than the extent to which individuals possess a minute knowledge of the details of the data and the conclusions reached by students and scientists of the field. It is quite often the case that even the well-educated, having absorbing concerns of their own areas of expertise, are not currently informed of the most recent results of study. This is germane and crucial in light of your contention that people who consider a theory of evolution to be the most plausible explanation for species diversity do so because of a dogmatic adherence to what they have been told, as opposed to an understanding of the principles involved. It was to this quibble on your part that i referred in remarking upon your elitist attitude.

Quote:
Can't help it. Everybody has an opinion on evolutionary biology. But when you actually get to know the field, it frequently turns out to be counterintuitive, technical, and generally hard to make sense of. I would neither have studied this field nor minored in it if I hadn't believed it would make me know more about it than the average guy. If you wish to call this attitude elitist, be my guest.


See what i've written above. The elitist nature of your statement was to basically accuse others of superstitious belief because they do not possess your knowldege of the field. I consider that to be quite unwarranted. The dogmatically superstitious make no attempt to learn anything outside the scope of their canon, and absolutely refuse to accept revision or criticism. That you would characterize well-informed laymen of such an attitude smacks of academic elitism.

Quote:
1) I find this remark interesting, since I hadn't constrained my observations to Americans, nor said a single word to this effect in the post you were replying to.


In the post to which i replied, and which reply you have quoted, you began your remarks by reference to George's post. His post referred to your previous post. The portion which he quoted reads:

George, quoting Thomas, wrote:
Does Canada have religion classes or something like it? I'm wondering where America's extreme polarization on this issue comes from. And I'm speculating that maybe American creationists are dwelling on the fact that metaphysics and the limits of science are worth teaching in school, but American schools have no straightforward framework for teaching it in. Maybe that's why Americans get the full program of creationist activism, while the rest of the world gets only "murmurings", as goodfielder puts it. (emphasis added)


Therefore, you might understand why i took your remarks to refer to the United States, especially in view of the portion of that post which i have highlighted. I accept that your reference was not so restrictive--i suggest you might understand the origin of my misunderstanding, however.

Quote:
Even if I had expressed contempt for the ignorant masses of the United States, what would be your problem with that? After all, your nation is no more exempt from ridiculing and sneering than Elsie_T's and Adele_G's religion.


First, i have not suggested that my nation is exempt from "ridiculing and sneering." Second, do you suggest that one ought not to object on that basis? Certainly Miss Adele and Miss Elsie have done so.

Finally, for my part, at least, i indulged no ridicule until it had been visited upon me for stating that i would be willing to look at Mr. Johnson's book online were it available, but that i would not buy it based upon his personal history in the ID movement, and the fact of its having been published by the major American ID front organization. That was the departure point for the scorn of both Miss Adele and Miss Elsie, and i feel neither guilty nor iniquitous for having responded to that scorn in like kind. I considered their religious beliefs to be fair game at that point at which they refused to name the designer implicit in "intelligent design," and began firing broadsides at atheists, without having established whether or not they were conversing with atheists. Additionally, i was attacked with an accusation something to the effect that i do nothing but run around these fora heaping scorn on religion. I suspect that you might be sufficiently familiar with the range of subjects which i visit at this site, and the amount of my posts devoted to mere silliness and harmless fun, to know that only a very small fraction of the 20,000+ posts i have made deal with the issue of religion. If you lie down with the hounds, you'll get up with fleas. Had Miss Adele and Miss Elsie not wished to make an issue of religion they ought neither to have visited a thread with "religion" as a titular constituent of the discussion, or scorned others on an assumption of atheism.

Quote:
1) I'm grossly oversimplifying now, but Germans in general take a back seat to no one when it comes to accepting uncritically what the authorities tell them. I said nothing to the opposite effect in the post you responded to. 2) That said, creationism does play a marginal role in Germany, probably because our authorities don't treat it as a respectable theory. You are always welcome to visit me in Munich and check this out for yourself. Heck, you might even find that I sneer a whole lot less than you think I do.


Refer, if you please, once again to my remarks above as to why i believed that you were indulging in a special scorn for the United States. If as you allege, Germans are given to accepting uncritically what is told them by authority, the fact that authority does not treat creationism as a respectable theory hardly suggests that Germans do not indulge it for sound intellectual reasons. It is also noteworthy that southern Germany, as is the case in Austria, has historically had largely a Catholic confession. Are you confident that the same attitude prevails in the rest of Germany?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 03:48 pm
Thomas said
Quote:
I make observations like this quite frequently, so, arrogant or not, I am very pessimistic about evolutionary biology being widely understood.



Well, be of good cheer, there are annually thousands of important papers in at least a few hundred kindred disciplines to "evolutionary biology" , and many, if not most of these attempt to be understood by a cross index of scientists and informed "laity'.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 03:50 pm
I've never seen Thomas sneer on a face-to-face encounter, but on a2k, watch out! LOL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:15 pm
sometimes his "sneering" gets to be a bit self congratulatory and rather stuffy, IMHO.
As a sometimes teacher, I think Id quit were I to be as defeatist as he . So , some people are "challenged" . Others are merely uninformed and others are informed in ways than what we normatively consider as "correct'. Most of those can be fixed.

Ive GOT a dog in this fight and I cannot see a compelling argument made that includes an admission that the judge 'Just isnt smart enough to grasp this technical stuff"
As technical people who work in the various fields, It is our duty to not try to sell bottles of Lo Poppa high , or High Poppa Low.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:20 pm
spendius wrote:
Adele-

What about me?I'm supposed to be Mr Nasty his very self.


Yes, Spendi, this comes under the ID catagory. Any designer who designed you.......in all your brilliance, could not be considered sane. Intelligent but insane for sure.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:24 pm
Setanta wrote:
By the way, you didn't answer my question, which was: ". . . perhaps you could expound upon the creationist fallacy with regard to the amount of 'room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.'"

Underlying the three professors' marvelings was an implicit assumption that natural selection is an ineficcient way to optimize things, and that the designs it evolves can be significantly improved by genetical engineering. This is creationist because genetical engineers act as creators, or, if you will, intelligent designers. It is a fallacy because evolution actually is a surprisingly efficient algorithm for optimization. Hence, creationist fallacy. The failure of these three scientist wasn't that they didn't possess "a minute knowledge of the details", as you put it. It was that they lacked a general understanding of what evolutionary algorithms are good at optimizing, and a gut feeling for the way things can optimize themselves even if there is no mind with consciousness and foresight in charge.

Setanta wrote:
That you would characterize well-informed laymen of such an attitude smacks of academic elitism.

I do not characterize well-informed laymen of such an attitude -- I merely believe that they are a small minority within the general population. That said, I don't have a particular problem having my statements labelled as elitist. It's not the worst thing one might conceivably accuse me of.

Setanta wrote:
I accept that your reference was not so restrictive--i suggest you might understand the origin of my misunderstanding, however.

Works for me.

Setanta wrote:
Second, do you suggest that one ought not to object on that basis? Certainly Miss Adele and Miss Elsie have done so.

I do not suggest so. I have no problem with your reaction to adele_g and elsie_t; you just sounded to me as if you objected to the "contempt for the ignorant masses of the United State" you perceived from me. Also, please do feel free to mock and sneer at my country anytime. (Not that I've ever seen you do it.)

Quote:
If as you allege, Germans are given to accepting uncritically what is told them by authority, the fact that authority does not treat creationism as a respectable theory hardly suggests that Germans do not indulge it for sound intellectual reasons.

I agree. Generalizing grossly again, Germans are quite happy to indulge in religiously motivated irrationality if their authorities support it. For example, the median German opinions on abortion, stem cell research, and separation of church and state would be firmly in "religious right" territory if voiced in America.

Setanta wrote:
It is also noteworthy that southern Germany, as is the case in Austria, has historically had largely a Catholic confession. Are you confident that the same attitude prevails in the rest of Germany?

Quite so. If Hamburger still is in touch with his old country, I'm pretty sure he will tell you a very similar story about Hamburg, whose Christians are at least 90% protestant. Before I spent 15 years of my life in Munich, I spent 10 years of my life in Hannover, which is as firmly Lutheran as Hamburg. The attitudes on evolution are practically the same in all three places: In our public schools you will find a creationist teacher or two if you look for them (usually they will be Jehova's witnesses.) In all three cities ou will find two or three far-out evangelical preachers outside our downtown shopping centers, with five or ten people listenting to them. (But never fifty.) But the overwhelming majority (90% and then some) are either Roman Catholic or Lutheran, and neither organization endorses creationism in Germany. As a consequence, it remains a fringe phenomenon here. (Knock on wood.)
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:27 pm
Quote:
I strongly suspect that most agnostics trust evolutionary biology for the same reason most evangelicals trust creationism: because the authorities they respect tell them to.


I know scientific method from non-scientific method and it has nothing to do with adherence to authority.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:38 pm
Thomas wrote:
Underlying the three professors' marvelings was an implicit assumption that natural selection is an ineficcient way to optimize things, and that the designs it evolves can be significantly improved by genetical engineering. This is creationist because genetical engineers act as creators, or, if you will, intelligent designers. It is a fallacy because evoltion actually is a surprisingly efficient algorithm for optimization. Hence, creationist fallacy. The failure of these three scientist wasn't that they didn't possessed "a minute knowledge of the details", as you put it. It was that they lacked a general understanding of what evolutionary algorithms are good at optimizing, and a gut feeling for the way things can optimize themselves even if there is no mind with consciousness and foresight being in charge.


This is a good point to make. I am frankly amazed and amused by well-informed people making such an assumption. However, agronomic genetic engineering is much more commonly practiced in the United States, or so i've read, so perhaps we are more familiar with its pedestrian results. The promises of corporations such as ADM have not been born out, and a good deal of scepticism was voiced by traditional farmers in advance. (In the 1950s and -60s, seed corn growers were suckered into buying seed for their production which produced taller and larger stalks, but still only produced two ears per stalk, with the same number of kernels, and no appreciable increase in weight of shelled corn. Beginning in the late 1970's, seed and field corn growers began switching to seed which produced much smaller plants, but an equivalent production of shelled corn, on the principle that it would reduce the rate of soil exhaustion. Whether or not GM corn yields a significant increase in shelled corn, i could not say, as i haven't followed the issue closely. However, having grown up in farm country, i was aware of the scepticism with which the claims of would-be GM seed producers were met.)

Quote:
I do not characterize well-informed laymen of such an attitude -- I merely believe that they are a small minority within the general population. That said, I don't have a particular problem having my statements labelled as elitist. It's not the worst thing one might conceivably accuse me of.


Well, in all honesty, in my more cynical and arrogant moments, i have an exceedingly low opinion of the intellect of the general public, so perhaps i should desist in scorning the kettle. By the way, you didn't tell me which sombitch called you arrogant--i really would enjoy a good brawl this evening.

Quote:
Also, please do feel free to mock and sneer at my country anytime. (Not that I've ever seen you do it.)


Thanks, but as my Sweetiepie is the daughter of Hamburger, discretion will prove the better part of valor, and i'll keep my mouth shut.

Quote:
Quite so. If Hamburger still is in touch with his old country, I'm pretty sure he will tell you a very similar story about Hamburg, whose Christians are at least 90% protestant. Before I spent 15 years of my life in Munich, I spent 10 years of my life in Hannover, which is as firmly Lutheran as Hamburg. The attitudes on evolution are practically the same in all three places: In our public schools you will find a creationist teacher or two if you look for them (usually they will be Jehova's witnesses.) In all three cities ou will find two or three far-out evangelical preachers outside our downtown shopping centers, with five or ten people listenting to them. (But never fifty.) But the overwhelming majority (90% and then some) are neither Roman Catholic or Lutheran, and neither organization endorses creationism in Germany. As a consequence, it remains a fringe phenomenon here. (Knock on wood.)


I find this interesting, as there is, despite quite a vigorous ultramontane Catholic community in this country, a noticable lack of Catholic participation in "fundamental" christian movements and ideas here.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:50 pm
Setanta wrote:
It's a matter however of quantity and quality. No one futhers narrow-minded authoritarian dogma so often or so well as the fundatmentalist Protestant and the ultramontane Catholic.

George, you're hilarious sometimes. Do you allege that Lola and i are members of a "public policy elite?" If that is so, by god, somebody owes me a shitload of back pay.


Evidently I am suspected of "ultramontane Catholic" tendences. A remarkable feat for a rather cavalier, but Jesuit-educated semi-practicioner. Now that I am in a bottle with a label, I guess my thoughts no longer need be considered.

I don't suggest anything regarding your membership in a public policy elite - only the general conformity of your views in this area to theirs.

I haven't detected any condescension or arrogance in Thomas' remarks at all. He is a bit direct and compact in his expression, but overall quite logical and open.

Interesting point about the variable potential of genetic engineering. I agree that natural selection can be a very efficient process for optimization, but suggest that often the factors we wish to optimize for food production, or even decorative plants, do not generally coincide with the goals of nature. So much has been achieved in the pre genetic engineering hybridization of food crops and even recently in the development oif disease resistant and herbicide resistant food crops that I find this point of Thomas' a bit remarkable. Could you elaborate?

It is a beautiful day here in San Francisco. Clear sky with unlimited visibility, temperature 70 deg. F (21 deg C). Just back from a pleasant lunch on the Marina (Thomas will recall the place) and now off to the gym to work off any vagrant ill-feeling and to steel myself for later bouts on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2005 04:53 pm
Lola wrote:
Quote:
I strongly suspect that most agnostics trust evolutionary biology for the same reason most evangelicals trust creationism: because the authorities they respect tell them to.


I know scientific method from non-scientific method and it has nothing to do with adherence to authority.



Wow!

We gotta talk about the implications of this post, Lola.


Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 12:54:37