Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Shira wrote-

Quote:

In any case, it's still hilarious to find moral relativism substantiating Christianity

Whatever moral relativism I embrace it doesn't go close to knocking off a mite at 23.59 hours in messy circumstances being legal and it being illegal at 00.01 hours when the kick off point is a bit fluid.

georgeob1 wrote:

The mathematical definition of the singularity with which physics describes the origin of the cosmos is "undefined". While that is certainly a useful semantical (and mathematical) placeholder for something, the evolution of which can be understood and described, it says nothing at all about its origin. Moreover, nothing more is in the offing.

I have never said that the singularity implied by the Big Bang model answers absolute origins or is anything other than implied. In fact, I've argued against that being the case. So who are you talking to, exactly?

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't exclude the possibility of some breakthrough in this aspect of science. However, I note the so far persistent impasse that confronts physics, and indeed philosophy, on this point. In that context the evidence suggests your confidence in science constitutes a leap of faith far greater than mine.

What confidence (you imply arrogance)? Can you quote me next time? I don't think you've followed what I've been saying...

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't fault you for it though. At the same time, I don't see any logical merit in your pre emptory judgement about the course I take

That's because you've concentrated on something which doesn't exist, namely some idea that I think the Big Bang answers that ultimate question or that any science will resolve them. It is possible that a very satisfactory answer may eventually be reached, but it seems infinitely possible that one can always ask about another causal link back.

I stand by what I actually said: taking ignorance and shoving a semantics argument in there does nothing but perhaps allow one to delude themselves and others. It is even more ridiculous than inventing transdimensional leprechauns to explain the origin of photosynthesis.

I made no argument at all to insist that my answer is correct or that yours is deficient, and I haven't played any semantical games.

Instead I noted that, in the absence of any explanation of our origins or fate from human knowledge or science, the belief that answers to these inescapable questions will eventually emerge, itself constitutes a substantial leap of faith - the very thing that elicited your criticism of the choice I have made.

I stand by what I actually said: taking ignorance and shoving a semantics argument in there does nothing but perhaps allow one to delude themselves and others. It is even more ridiculous than inventing transdimensional leprechauns to explain the origin of photosynthesis.

georgeob1 wrote:

I made no argument at all to insist that my answer is correct or that yours is deficient, and I haven't played any semantical games.

Uh... read what I quoted you as saying. I've stated that you had a straw man. I have no idea where you get this new defense, it's essentially an implicit straw man all on its own since I never accused you of semantics games. Of course, it's implicit in your statements that you think my argument, whatever you think it is, is deficient, but I'd be fine with ignoring that since I didn't make that accusation, either.

I stand by what I actually said: taking ignorance and shoving a semantics argument in there does nothing but perhaps allow one to delude themselves and others. It is even more ridiculous than inventing transdimensional leprechauns to explain the origin of photosynthesis.

Instead I noted that, in the absence of explanation of our origins or fate from human knowledge or science, the belief that answers to these inescapable questions will eventually emerge, itself constitutes a substantial leap of faith - the very thing that elicited your criticism of the choice I have made.

Then you are doing precisely what I listed before. To say that this question is "inescapable" is fairly meaningless since it has no answer. Pretending that you have one doesn't mean you've escaped the question, either, it means you're foolish and deluding yourself.

I have noted that science lacks an explanation for our origins and fate, and that, despite its numerous other achievements, it appears to have made no progress at all in finding one.

Of course, you're also simply lying about my views concerning abortion.

georgeob

Quote:

I have noted that science lacks an explanation for our origins and fate, and that, despite its numerous other achievements, it appears to have made no progress at all in finding one.

You are incorrect here george. Weve made great leaps in developing technical EXPLANATIONS for our origins. The only problems are whethre these explanations are the correct ones. Now, in order to accept a supernatural intercedence as a "jump start" leaves us with NO trails of evidence or inference. (In fact, a supernatural explanation is counter evidentiary isnt it?) Therefore, being a slave to the scientific method, I do prefer to surround my tale with some hefty evidence, rather than a "wait and see" position. After all, even if youre right, what harm is there to go and find out how some God did it?
Youre argument, seems to me to be developed from a position of purposely averting your workplan from anything that could be considered science. No?Im sure you didnt finish a PhD at CAltech with such an attitude.

Were all just on a quest, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Do you think people will remember the names of MArshal Kay or Stanhope Brown? (These are 2 Ivy geologists who made careers out of pre-drift mechanics, they werent luddites or trogs, they were two very bright guys who were just working at the wrong time, about 5 years before the theory of plate tectonics was evidenced). They picked the wrong side and pursued it passionately. They are still remembered as good guys at YAle, just not immortal.

Im more a "menu hopper" with cosmology. Im always in between listening to the brane v BB guys and am still convinced , however, that the dscoid shape of the universe, coupled with cosmic background radiation, and increases of heavy elements in the far spectra, are all significant.

Do you think that God wants us to remain ignorant? Do you think it presumptious to attempt to see what was on her miond at the time? Weve only got about 4 Billion years or so to go, we better get on it.

I can feel your disappointment at FFT's .Most "modelling from similitude" gets to be a letdown when you get it. BTW, thats what the word "staff" was invented for

Intelligent Design Film Boosts Academic Freedom Bills, Advocates Say
(By Kevin Mooney, CNSNews.com, May 29, 2008)

(CNSNews.com) - A documentary released earlier this year may be partly responsible for "academic freedom bills" now advancing at the state level. Those bills are intended to strengthen the free speech rights of those who seek to examine the full range of views on evolutionary theory.

The film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" suggests that biologists, chemists, and astronomers have been censored, denied tenure, and even fired in some cases after raising questions about Charles Darwin's 150-year-old theory that life results from random mutations and natural selection.

The film has prompted some states to consider legislation that would insulate teachers and students who believe there is evidence of "design" in nature, Walt Ruloff, a co-producer for the film, told Cybercast News Service.

In fact, within the next two weeks, one Louisiana state legislator expects his bill to reach the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) where it will become law. The Louisiana Science Education Act, which passed by a vote of 35-0 in the state senate, has broad bipartisan support, said Rep. Ben Nevers, the bill's chief sponsor.

"Some teachers are afraid to teach certain subject matters, and they want to know the materials they bring into the class have been approved, and I think this piece of legislation provides them with protection. It also brings consistency to the school systems in our state."

Nevers told Cybercast News Service he has not seen the film "Expelled" and is more concerned about keeping the school curriculum up to date with scientific advances.

"This bill does not allow the teaching of any religious belief, or religious theory, so if it's not science...then certainly it couldn't be brought into our classrooms in Louisiana," he added .

Caroline Crocker, a biological scientist who appears in "Expelled," testified before the Louisiana House Committee on Education earlier this month.

"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas," she said in her testimony. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.

"But I am also aware that Louisiana prides itself on being a melting pot for all, where people are comfortable with, and respectful of, divergent viewpoints," she continued. "Therefore, I am in favor of SB 733, which will help ensure the intellectually honest consideration of innovative, and possibly unpopular, scientific theories.

So far this year, legislation has been introduced in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama and Michigan as well as in Louisiana.

"We are very excited to have seen some movement here," Ruloff said. "The idea behind the academic freedom bills is to allow teachers and students to ask critical questions and to weigh both sides of the scientific debate on evolution without fear of reprisal. Hopefully more states will follow suit and we can begin to see a change in the orthodoxy that has taken hold."

The bills vary somewhat in their language but they all proceed from a central theme, Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute, explained in an interview.

"The legislation protects the rights of teachers and students to discuss a wide range of scientific topics in the classroom, even if they happen to be critical of modern Darwinism," he said. "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

The Discovery Institute is a non-partisan think tank based in Seattle, Wash., that supports research by scientists and other scholars who challenge various aspects of Darwinian theory -- and who are "developing the scientific theory known as Intelligent Design." The institute "encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths."

To this end, the institute has posted a model academic freedom bill on the Internet that provides teachers and students with protection at the elementary, high school and graduate school level.

The proposed legislation reads in part as follows: "No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution..."

Some state officials sought input from Discovery, while others went in their own direction, Luskin said. The legislation currently under consideration is narrowly tailored so students can be exposed to the evidence both for and against evolution without getting into alternative theories like Intelligent Design, he added. Moreover, unlike the Discovery proposal, the pending state bills only cover the grades K-12 and do not touch on four-year colleges or graduate institutions, Luskin said.

While the publicity connected with "Expelled" has opened a nationwide dialogue on free speech within the scientific community, the various state proposals should not be seen as somehow advancing or promoting Intelligent Design, he said.

In fact, the Discovery Institute actually opposed the attempt of Dover, Pa., school officials to require the teaching of Intelligent Design in their school district back in 2005. (A federal judge reversed that policy in December of that same year in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.)

"Our priority with Intelligent Design is to see it advance as science and not as political hot potato," Casey said. "We want to see Intelligent Design debated by scientists, not by politicians. When the issue becomes politicized, that tends to result in increased persecution of scientists supportive of Intelligent Design and in fact this is exactly what we have seen in the wake of Dover."

Meanwhile, in Florida -- where there appeared to be significant momentum behind the Evolution Academic Freedom Act just a few weeks ago -- the state legislature ultimately failed to agree on a final bill.

There is no evidence to suggest that any teacher in Florida ever lost their job as result of advocating a particular position on evolution, Jill Chamberlain, a spokesperson for Republican House Speaker Marco Rubio, said in an interview.

Therefore, there was some concern in the Florida House that the Senate bill was far too expansive and would have allowed some teachers to stray from the approved curriculum, Chamberlain said. For this reason, the bill was rewritten on the house side, Chamberlain said.

With the legislature out of session for the remainder of the year and with term limitations kicking in for some of the bill's supporters, including Speaker Rubio, its future is uncertain, she observed.

Earlier this year, Florida lawmakers attended a private screening of "Expelled" in Tallahassee, where they met with the film's producers and with Ben Stein, the former presidential speechwriter-turned-Hollywood actor who serves as the film's narrator. At the time, Stein expressed support for the Florida's Evolution Academic Freedom Act.

Some critics, however, question the need for such legislation.

"What are teachers not able to teach now that will be able to teach as a result of these bills?" asked Joshua Rosenau, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). "What is it exactly that these bills are supposed to protect? It seems to me like the teachers already have most of the rights that these (bills) protect, and so there certainly is a suspicion that these are intended to open the door to creationism and other topics that don't belong in science classes."

Moreover, the kind of instruction that would occur on the high school level, if the bills become law, would be counterproductive, Rosenau argued. The presentation of alternative viewpoints that stray from the scientific consensus is better suited for the college environment, he said.

"Students at high school don't have background to understand the scientific debate because they haven't learned the basics yet, Rosenau observed. High school should be about what the scientists agree on so the students are prepared. That's where this whole idea behind these bills gets weird. A 101 class in college is where it's more appropriate to get into where scientists who are on the cutting edge have disputes. Instead of protecting rights, this could be about promoting bad pedagogy.

Rosenau's organization has been highly critical of the "Expelled" film saying the accusations of scientific censorship are greatly overblown. An entire Web site is devoted to exposing what the NSCE views as "anti-science propaganda."

For her part, Crocker, the biologist featured in the film, has responded to the NSCE's arguments. She says the NSCE includes numerous inaccuracies of its own.

The NSCE's criticisms of the Louisiana bill do not hold up under close examination, and she encourages interested parties to read the bill.

"The legislation is fairly straightforward," she said in an interview. "Teachers should be allowed to teach the science, and it specifically excludes the teaching of religion, so I don't see that as a problem. It [the Louisiana bill] just allows teachers to teach evidence for and against controversial theories while providing for academic freedom. To me that's a very good thing."

I have noted that science lacks an explanation for our origins and fate, and that, despite its numerous other achievements, it appears to have made no progress at all in finding one. You have expressed a degree of confidence that it will eventually do so.

As I perceive them, questions relating to our origins and fate are indeed meaningful and real - independently of whether or not scientific answers to them appear readily available. You have expressed what appears to be a different view of this matter, evidently questioning the meaningfulness of such a question in the absence of a scientific answer.

This confounds me, and itself appears to fly in the face of fundamental scientific principles: unanswered questions involving cause and efect are the essence of science.

The fact that no such answers regarding our origins & fate appear to be forthcoming from science has led me to consider and assume other possibilities, outside of science. You have characterized that assumption as foolish, even ridiculous.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

I stand by what I actually said: taking ignorance and shoving a semantics argument in there does nothing but perhaps allow one to delude themselves and others. It is even more ridiculous than inventing transdimensional leprechauns to explain the origin of photosynthesis.

Again I don't see what the "shoving a semantics argument in there" part means, or to what it may refer, at all.

I acept your choice evidently to stand pat and await whatever further developments may emerge from science. However, in the face of the stunning (to me) absence of progress on the question of origins, I suggest that this too involves a significant leap of faith - as below.

I don't really understand this. The logic appears circular, and the reference to what was said before eludes me. I fully addressed the meaningfulness of the question above. You accuse me of "pretending" to have an answer, while it appears to me that you are merely "pretending" the question has no meaning. The question is real and meaningful, at least to me. You have chosen to await an answer from science: I have chosen to accept one outside of science. Both acts involve implicit assumptions, that something, not yet apparent will be revealed.

I'm willing to respect and accept the choice you have made. You appear to be unwilling to return the favor.

I don't do accusations of lying pal. You keep them to the usual area you deploy them.

You have given out that there's a cut off point, wherever it is, in the gestation process, that's a little mite growing in what is supposed to be the safest place the evolution process has produced, at which you begin to think it might possibly be okay to knock it off. That is what I have taken your views on abortion to be. And that is all I have proceed on.

Whatever moral relativism I embrace it doesn't go close to knocking off a mite at 23.59 hours in messy circumstances being legal and it being illegal at 00.01 hours when the kick off point is a bit fluid.

Another thing I don't do is cut off points. There's only one view on abortion and all the rest is a bunch of twits manoeuvering around with money and personal convenience in mind. All the same I mean. Not one to mend another.

And you can easily see what twits they are because they not only do cut off points but they are supporters of bringing evolution theory into classrooms and shoving it up the kid's arses and the message, the main one, from evolution its very self about gestation is accompanied by what one might imagine is a smirk of satisfaction, could evolution do such a thing, a baby's smile, say, at having found for the carriers of its message the safest place yet, Huxley's bottles being as silly an idea as bothering about singularities, it got him out of a hole in the plot construction which he couldn't have got out of without them, and in comes these weavers of the winds, in the name of science, and evolution theory is left with its head up where fm often says mine is. Except that I provide evidence for my assertion.

And not only is it bad manners to accuse someone of lying, and thus inappropriate for a discussion of this importance between grown-ups, but it shows that you are still at that stage where you are unable to accuse someone of such a despicable crime against literature in anymore witty way than that to be found in school playgrounds at the junior levels.

Those academic freedom bills are irritating, aren't they? It seems far too many people fall for the overt mislabeling of legislation :/. Of course, the DI supplies them with various materials so that legislators unfamiliar with the ideas will vote in their favor (very poor educational standards concerning biology in the U.S.).