Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

foxy, Ive invited two A2kers on to this thread. They are dispassionate , well veresed Buddhists with wider interests than this thread. I hope they are able to provide some guidance to us all re: the subject at hand.

Professor Arindam Chakrabarti of the University of Dehli wrote-



Why anyone should inflict that on their sons and daughters is a complete mystery to me. No one who has caused children to be born can possibly countenance such a proposition without going mad.

If your two guests do show up on here I would be mightily surprised. One might think that those kids who take a sub-machine gun into schools and start mowing people down are simply trying to put people out of their agonies and thus might be viewed as humane.

Even Mr O'Leary eventually decided to cancel the "drop out" part of his previous message.

Only inanimate objects can be classed as "dispassionate" on a science thread. And how is one such object able to post on here?

Moving on.

Charles Darwin wrote-



This suggests to me that using evolutionary principles for guidance one has a duty to the species involving a considerable amount of law breaking.

Young lads in 12 Grade would naturally want possession of the females and to be thought vigorous and successful either by force or charm.

Whatever- it hardly looks like the correct way of preparing them for a life of blissful domestic monogamy.

Will this passage be omitted from the scientific study of Darwin's work by the ever vigilant AIDs-ers.

The alpha male is hereby declared victorious and what Nietzsche called the "bungled and the botched" can whistle in the wind or, under some pressure, be exterminated.

What 12 Grade ladies make of it I am not qualified to speak.

While I have no objection to anyone participating on the thread, I see no need for guidance on the subject of ID. You think it is a crock of sh*t. I think it is valid.

Most AIDers are 100% unwilling to see any point of view other than IDers are trying to make churches out of the schools or some other idiotic concept in that vein.

Most IDers, while in no way advocating ID be taught as science, are unwilling to give consent for Atheists to make of the schools narrow minded, tunnel visioned intellectual wastelands.

Now if your invited guests choose to speak to that, great. Otherwise, I think the discussion will likely be sidetracked into non-related issues.

(Was that sort of going for the jugular, Spendi? )

foxfyre

If you say that , by some "head count" most IDers will grant that schools should tech only science, then I have to wonder, why is there all this hullabaloo with IDers trying to insert their core beliefs into schools.

Giving consent to "atheists" is about as ridiculouys a claim as Ive heard. Youre not afraid of science are you? There is no inherentr atheism in science and many practitioners (like Ken Miller who youve given your imprimatur) are actually devout in their beliefs.

No, its merely a matter of control, a small yet vocal minority needs to have the control reestablished in the same vein that Creationism was the ONLY allowed doctrine allowed in the early 19th century.
"narrow minded tunnel visioned wastelands"--pretty tough talk from one who is arguing for the imposition of the fraud that is ID (and its parent Creationism).

SCience is science, its to be value neutral in class. The decisions of what to do with the discoveries is a function of ethics (somehow weve been lfed a line of crap to believe that all science and ethics are derived from religion and thats just bullshit). As Ive said throughout this thread, if youve a passion to be separate and imbue your sciences with some sort of ID basis, you are certainly free to begin a parochial or charter school that deals in Earth, fire, water, and wind based science (or whatever you think that Buddhism adds to the mix).

I will , based upon my past practices, fight you imposing your interpretation in my public school system.(So far, my mindset has been prevailing by ALL court decrees).

You cant separate the "agnosticism" of ID from the ultimate question of "who is the Intelligent designer" . That question will dog you to the end and to deny its religious nature, youre kidding yourself.

Now, will I answer a question by a student? of course, and as I said before, Id show via evidence to the contrary that ID is a "Scientific theory" Its not.
Weve gone full circle many times over on the original question of this thread and weve tread the discussion path numerous times, no new evidence for ID has been forwarded other than "The world is too complex to not have been intelligently designed". When that can be infilled with some evidence, then you may have something worth discussing.

I accept that you do not think my point of view is worth discussing FM. That is pretty much why I left the thread previously. I came back when it looked like maybe there could be some reasonable discussion other than bashing, misquoting, mistating IDers and making absurd statements about what we wanted and/or intended while ignoring any valid point we make.

I was wrong.

But oh well.

It's funny how IDiots has the gall to call those promoting science as the ones bashing, misquoting, and mistating IDers. What a bunch of crap.

Do a bashing, misquoting and mistating count c.i. Start with "Bunch of crap". One. Then go to fm's last post.

I presume you can count.

What's your view on the Darwin quote up above? My 7.11 am post.

fm wrote-



I dealt with that but yesterday. The question will dog everybody to the end forever and ever.

Why do you proceed as if you are the only person on the thread?

Have you any idea of how many questions you have failed to answer.

Where's your Buddhist guests?

What's your view on my 7.11 am post?



I am. It's red in tooth and claw ain't it? The candidates in your election seems pretty wary of it as an ultimate arbiter. They are not even being questioned on the matter so it looks like the political watchdogs are wary too. And no wonder when sex, class and property will vanish beneath its baleful and sterile aridities.



Do you really believe that means anything?



The highest court in the land decreed the action in Iraq. I understood you opposed that decision.



You never discuss anything you don't want to discuss. You're like one of those kids at the fairground riding in circles on a hobby horse.

(next page)

Well, I was one of those asked to visit your thread, and here I are. While I'm a politically-conservative Buddhist, the other Buddhist invitee is from the other side of the aisle... and we get along better than just fine. I suspect that our comments will be pretty nearly the same, since we tend to agree on most Buddhist topics.

I've gone back and read maybe half a dozen pages of this thread to see why we were invited here to clarify a Buddhist position on Intelligent Design. The link offered by CJ seemed pretty clear to me, and I would have thought all that was needed here. It seems it was not. It seems to me that you folks are discussing more than one issue.

This is the Scientific & Mathematics Thread, Duh. The pages I read "appeared to have little to do with science & mathematics. You are, I believe, caught up in a squabble over school curriculum, religion and politics. Of course, those elements are what makeup the current efforts by some to "get around" Evolution. So I suppose that I need to address each of the "issues" in Buddhist terms seperately.

From this Buddhist's Perspective:

Evolution v. Planned Creation, or Science v. Religious Dogma

Buddhism is primarily concerned with the problem of suffering and the mitigation of suffering. Buddhism provides an answer to the cause(s) of suffering, assures us that suffering can be overcome, and sets forth a practical plan to ease suffering. Questions regarding the cause(s) of suffering lead to a Buddhist understanding of universal reality that can be found nascent in other Asian religions, but that has been foreign to Western cosmology until recent times.

The reality that we live in is illusory, a dream in which phantoms play out their roles in the mistaken belief that the vision comprises all of reality. That is to a Buddhist, Perceptual Reality... the universe governed by physical laws that are inherent to a universe of multiplicity with time and spacial dimensions as natural attributes. In Perceptual Reality change is inevitable, but will proceed in accordance with the physics of the Unified Field Theory, of which Newtonian, Einstienian, and Quantum Physics are sub-sets. In Perceptual Reality, those governing "laws" can be discovered and utilized.

For the Abrahamic faiths, Perceptual Reality is governed by a set of divinely ordered physics that while perfectly reasonable as late as the 14th century, has been increasingly at odds with science and technology since. The world is not flat, nor the center of the Universe. Physical laws govern the universe, not the whims of a deity. Magic doesn't rule, and many of the "Universal Truths" have been shown to not even have local relevance.

Buddhist theology, on the other hand, has never had a problem with accepting science, mathematics, and technology as means to understand Perceptual Reality. The reason for that, beyond natural Buddhist practicality, is that Perceptual Reality is Illusory and arises from a more complete Ultimate Reality. For Buddhist's Ultimate Reality is indivisible and without corporeal existence. It is infinite, without borders and is unchanged and unchanging. In Ultimate Reality there is no multiplicity, and hence there are no "real" dimensions of any sort. Perceptual Reality arises from Ultimate Reality, but no one can know why the Great Ineffable "dreams". Infinite Ultimate Reality, being outside time and containing all possibilities "dreams" all possible variations outside of time/space and in so doing creates in Zero time duration an infinite number of Perceptual Realities, of which our experiential universe is one. Buddhist Ultimate Reality has no personality, nor consciousness that would be recognizable to us, it JUST IS. Quantum Theory is probably the most difficult insight into how the Universe is constructed, and, being counter-intuitive, may never be completely understood by anyone... certainly not understandable by those who insist that the Perceptual World is best described by dogma based on Abrahamic Principles.

Evolution and adaptability of species to their environmental conditions is not a problem for Buddhists. Scientific Methods of fitting theory to observation, and then continually testing the theory against all future observations in search of a flaw, conforms to Buddhisms fundamental premises. No theory is ever, using the Scientific Method, completely proven because it may have to be modified by some unknown future observation. Evolution and adaptability of species on the planet Earth is good science.

Is Intelligent Design good science? Personally and from a Buddhist perspective, I don't believe so. Is there any evidence to support the theory that the Perceptual Universe was consciously designed by a perfect architect? Is the Perceptual Universe finite and governed by a set of relatively simple laws? If the architect can design, then "he" can modify and revise. Is there ANY evidence to support divine intervention into the laws of physics and mathematics? I suppose that it might be argued that Quatum Physics is God's playground, but then the Abrahamic dogma would be revolutionized to an even greater extent than in accepting Evolution as good science, and the most probable explanation of observations of earthly evidence regarding the matter. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it starts with a theory and then must find observational evidence to support the theory, rather than the other way around. Observation supports, and indeed was the genesis of, Evolutionary Theory. Countless observations have since been made that support Evolution. If this is a zero-sum game, then Evolution and not Intelligence Design more nearly describes how the terrestrial species came to be in their present form.

Educational Curriculum's Determined by: Religion, Local government, or Federal Government

Curriculum designed by Religion: Curriculum designed to conform to Religious dogma is a useful way to insure that the dogma will not be challenged. This approach shackles the mind and discourages the student from questioning the nature of his/her world. This approach is typified by the schools of tyrants and despots, both religious and secular. This approach should be an anathema to Americans whose fundamental values encourage questioning, experimentation, and generation of alternative points of view. We are a nation that has prospered by individuality and innovation, both of which religious/dogmatic curriculums decry. BTW, I believe this to be true, even if the curriculum were designed by Buddhist theologians.

Is there a place in our society for dogmatic curriculum's? Certainly. Parents can send their children private educational institutions where their own dogma prevails. Parents who wish their children to grow up believing iall that needs to be known of the world is described in 7th century religious texts, should be free to educate their children in that fashion. I believe that those children will grow up handicapped, and that some of them will become a societal problem later, but I also believe that society has very little business interfering in parent/child relationships. Parents should be as free as possible to guide and raise their children.

Abrahamic zealots are the religious analog to the measles. They tend to be very communicable, make folks miserable and they can be fatal to those with little resistance. On the other hand, The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful vaccination against religious tyranny and despotism. Efforts to return to the bad old days when followers of non-Abrahamic faiths could be marginalized and coerced are perhaps dangerous, but I really doubt that the zealots can turn back the clock.

Curriculum designed by the Federal Government: Nope, I'm against this approach because it puts far too much power into the hands of distant government. When every child is educated to a Federal curriculum there will be problems. Not least among the problems is, "Who gets to decide what the curriculum will be?" A bureaucrat in Washington with a plan to create the Ideal Society, whatever that might be? For the bureaucracy to design curriculum there is an ever present danger that what is taught will conform to a single political philosophy. The nation has benefited from diversity, and it is in diversity that liberty is best protected. The Federal Government is constrained by our Constitution specifically to prevent it from meddling into the affairs of private citizens. What could be more intrusive into personal freedom, than to dictate what children should be taught?

Curriculum designed by Local government/communities: Yeah, you guessed it this is the alternative that I personally plop for. Local School Boards vary from incompetent, cheap, and with weird agendas, to highly competent, responsible, and far-seeing. Some school districts have many resources and others very few. Some small schools are charged with educating children from families that are very homogeneous, to those large schools where families may have very little in common. Let the parents elect their own representatives to local school boards, and then let those school boards support and design their local educational system to meet local needs and desires. If a school board in East Gopher Hole wants to teach Intelligent Design to the exclusion of Evolution, let them try to do it. That works both ways. Parents who object can: (1) elect a new school board more to their liking, or (2) put their children into a different school system. This is an approach that has served this nation well for most of its history. Some students are indeed short-changed by the accident of their birth, but each of them retains the freedom to correct the "failings" of their parents and the communities of their youth. Some will make the changes, and others will choose not to. That's liberty, and it should be protected at all costs.

Questions? I'll keep an eye on this thread for a little while in case anyone wants my further input.

Ash

Kids past grade two or three can discern this type of indoctrination is pure bullshit.

Bill and Rusty are two simpletons who never were able to discern when they were being fed a line.

Interesting post, Asherman. Thank you.

As far as curriculum is concerned, there has been some movement towards more local control. Minnesota abolished its state board of education in 1998. New Mexico's legislature stripped the state school board of its authority in 2003. A few other states are considering doing the same.

Ash-

I think we are all interested in reducing suffering.

What's your position on the Chinese Government's actions in Tibet and their upcoming staging of the Olympic Games?

Somehow, we've gotten it into our heads that the Federal Government can, and should manage all things to ensure that perfect equality, perfect justice, and rewards are universal, and that no citizen ever be exposed to the risk of failure. How is it that we have lost faith in ourselves to manage our own lives, to accept risks and go forward anyway with optimism that we can improve our own lives?

Less than 75 years ago, the Federal Government was severely constrained from becoming involved in how our citizen's live their lives and manage their own affairs. FDR wasn't just a hero to those suffering from the economic collapse of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, he was also castigated as the man who Un-Constitutionally intruded the Federal Government into private lives. He was both. In the mid-20th century, discrimination based on sex, age, racial/ethnic background, and organizational affiliation was rampant. There were very few constraints on big business practices that often made competition very nearly impossible. Workers could be coerced and worked until they were worn out and then cast aside. There was no medical coverage, no governmental support for the aged, the lame or the single mother raising a house full of children. Some people back then actually did go hungry, or were driven out of town by authorities. Corruption often went un-noticed.

The American People demanded change, demanded that government do SOMETHING to bring back prosperity to the nation. We in the GOP tended to reply that while we sympathized with the suffering of the nation, we were prevented by the Constitution from making the sort of extensive, radical changes demanded of the Federal Government. Strict adherence to the Constitution trumped immediate measures to relieve the economy and restore the People's confidence in themselves. Whether the radical solutions offered by FDR were responsible for the nation's recovery is debatable, after all the productivity surge required for WWII probably was a more important factor. But, between 1935 and 1950 the nation became used to having the Federal Government around to regulate their lives.

Social Security and MediCare has made life better for countless people. Federal controls prevent unfair business practices, and Federal control over the currency has been effective in preventing the sort of economic meltdown we had during the Great Depression. Federal controls have helped avoid ecological disasters, and improve the quality of our air, water, and sanitation systems. Federal investments in interstate highways has tied the country together in ways that would have been impossible prior to the expansion of Federal "interference" into State and local affairs. Federal "interference" at local levels expunged the shame of Jim Crow Laws and increased the Civil Liberties of those previously victimized by prejudice. These are all "good" things, things that no one in their right mind opposes.

But, there is a price to be paid, and that a re-balancing in our relationship to the government. Prior to about 1935, the balance was tipped heavily toward individual liberty, and now the balance favors the Federal Government at the expense of individuals and States. What we should be working toward is optimal balance between the rights of society and the individual's freedom to do as they wish. The Federal Government is incapable of manufacturing a Utopia from the flawed materials of human nature. The Federal Government was never conceived to be, nor intended to be the guarantor of individual happiness, it was created solely to manage the nation's affairs that were beyond the reach of individual States and individuals. The Federal Government is about national security, foreign policy, interstate commerce and a stable economic system, and that's about it.

I'm sorry and apologize for the digression. However, this thread to my mind is still in the wrong forum. This isn't a question of science or mathematics, but "Who shall determine what is taught in the schools? Religious authorities, the Federal Government, or parents and local school boards. This is a thread that properly should be in the Political Forum.

Spendious,

I believe the PRC should tend to the many problems they face in preparing China for a future where they will be a part of the global economy. The PRC has population, resource, and structural problems that have nothing to do with their soveriegnty over Tibet, Taiwan, or the Korean Peninsula. Their involvement in those regions where China once ruled is a distraction that the leadership could do better without.

Tibet is a homogeneous and isolated society built around a Tantric Buddhism that has existed there for over a thousand years. Attempts to transform Tibet into a secular socialist tributary of the PRC, I believe, is like shoveling sand into the sea. People everywhere have strong religious impulses fed by their traditions, and those religious sentiments can not be effectively removed by decree or by force. In China, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, other religions have a very long history that can not be indefinitely denied.

In regard to boycotting the Olympics, I haven't any opinion at this time. A boycot would not likely restore His Holiness to Lhasa, nor return Tibet to the Theocracy that prevailed there prior to his exile. A boycot might result in slowing the trends that will eventually truly open the "Doors of China" to the World. I believe the world will be less at risk as China becomes more integrated into the world economy and culture. China is a threat to us all because of the difficulty in feeding and providing for a population racing through the billions. China has limited resources, and agricultural productivity is growing much slower than the demand for food. The measures to limit population growth has not been uniformly effective, especially in the rural areas. Those draconian measures have more potential to transform Chinese society than the Communist Party ever had. China remains isolated and with a distorted view of the West, and that can be deadly dangerous under some circumstances. Famine and a world-wide epidemic beginning in S.E. China could escalate beyond control pretty quickly. Competition for the world's remaining oil reserves makes the PRC a player that can not be ignored.

Again, my apologies for talking politics in a Science Forum thread. You ask, I respond as best I can.

Asherman, Thanks for your take on the point of discussion. We could be talking over each other for days and weeks and I apologize for taking part in the lowering of the standards of the debate and have no excuses or reasons . Weve moved away from individual points of evidence long ago, and are now more in the "nyah nyah"phase. Of course wandel's not part of that, hes merely the messenger that seems to catalyze the responses. His posting of relevant recent news on the "home front" is what keeps this thread going.

I've said it before, but not recently. Wandel deserves our thanks for his tireless efforts to keep the subject of the thread alive through his posting of the news on the "intelligent design" versus evolution front.

Asherman-

I think your remarks about this thread being on the wrong forum are ignorant. I don't think you are in any position after reading a few posts to have anything to say about such matters.

This thread is the most read thread on A2K as far as I can see. It has been going three years and we have all had a lot of fun out of it. I think it put on 600 views yesterday alone. I have learned a very great deal from it about a lot of things. My mates and I, and I include Santa in that, enjoy the cut and thrust of it. It's alive . It gets away, as far as is possible in such a setting, from that dread thing contactless sociability.

And we don't need propagandising at.

If you are as old as your avvie suggests and have lived in America all your life you are a Christian. We are all Christians on here. Atheists included. For me your Buddhism is an "I wanna be different" pose.

Your posts are unanswerable unless somebody wants to take a week over it. Which I don't.

As Spengler clearly shows we Westerners can have no concept of a culture grown out of a different physical world. It is an illusion to think otherwise.

I just hope that the other guy fm has invited over here fails to show up as I don't wish to peruse another load of incoherent ranting.

We ain't pretty. We are men of action not resignation.