dyslexia wrote
Quote:What we do know for sure (it says so in the good book) is that god created man in his own image which leaves us with the conculsion that (1) god is generally stupid and (2) god is, more often than not, ugly.
Keep it up and a thunderbolt from on high will get you. :wink:
One cant top that A D D story. Im gonna borrow it ifn you dont mind.
au1929 wrote:dyslexia wrote
Quote:What we do know for sure (it says so in the good book) is that god created man in his own image which leaves us with the conculsion that (1) god is generally stupid and (2) god is, more often than not, ugly.
Keep it up and a thunderbolt from on high will get you. :wink:
Eventually, given infinite time, everything happens. Correlation does not prove causation.
Lola wrote:au1929 wrote:dyslexia wrote
Quote:What we do know for sure (it says so in the good book) is that god created man in his own image which leaves us with the conculsion that (1) god is generally stupid and (2) god is, more often than not, ugly.
Keep it up and a thunderbolt from on high will get you. :wink:
Eventually, given infinite time, everything happens. Correlation does not prove causation.
Lola, I've always taken issue with that claim, that due to the fullness of time, everything will eventually happen. It seems that for it to be true you'd have to posit infinite matter energy and volume in our universe, and that isn't the it is as far as I know.
How about the bigger question. Should we respect the beliefs of those we do not agree with?
owl wrote:How about the bigger question. Should we respect the beliefs of those we do not agree with?
We don't have to respect anyone's belief, but we do have to respect their right to believe it.
Quote:This is precisely how the intelligent design movement has gotten as far as it has: by advocating outwardly inoffensive ideas in ever-more prestigious places, thereby giving the movement scientific validity.
It's also precisely how the ultra-right has gotten as far as it has as well. They strated locally with the school boards and delegates to the RNC and state legislatures and now look where we are. I can't define it further........I have to work. But I'll do it later if necessary.
Quote:On the Private, Invitation-only Screening of the "The Privileged Planet"
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the views of the Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." Given that the Discovery Institute has already issued invitations, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event, but will not participate or accept a donation for it.
This is the June 1, 2005 press release from the Smithsonian Institution.
au1929: thanks for bringing attention to this news story
From the perspective of science, intelligent design in some form or another is a possibility that we cannot exclude. It does not compete with evolutionary theroies at all - the questions of how did it all start and how does it change and grow are decidedly different matters. I don't claim to know the answer to the question of how did it all start, and I do recognize that science itself doesn't claim to know that answer either.
These are serious questions and one should be able to discuss various positions or possibilities without being described as a representative of this or that movement. Amusingly this kind of reaction is just what confronted Gallileo several centuries ago.
Intelligent design theory agrees with evolution theory in part but disagrees that natural selection can account for the evolution of complex organs. It seems to me that there is more corroboration for using natural selection as an explanation than for substituting "intelligent design" as an explanation.
Intelligent design strikes me as being akin to Benevolent Lamarckism.
Rap
wandeljw wrote:Intelligent design theory agrees with evolution theory in part but disagrees that natural selection can account for the evolution of complex organs. It seems to me that there is more corroboration for using natural selection as an explanation than for substituting "intelligent design" as an explanation.
Whether evolution, or God, or both created life on Earth, the matter should be settled by science, i.e. a detached, objective analysis of the evidence.
Intelligent design tries to have it both ways. It subscribes to the major findings of science and, often, professes a support of evolutionary means. What scaresme is that all the major tub thumpers of ID are all "faculty" members of the DiscoveryInstitute and are fond of stating that "evolution and Christianity cannot coexist". SCience must be value neutral.
The difference between this issue and Galileo is the following .
Galileo gave in and submitted to the church. He didnt stand his ground in order to save his ass.
Brandon9000 wrote:wandeljw wrote:Intelligent design theory agrees with evolution theory in part but disagrees that natural selection can account for the evolution of complex organs. It seems to me that there is more corroboration for using natural selection as an explanation than for substituting "intelligent design" as an explanation.
Whether evolution, or God, or both created life on Earth, the matter
should be settled by science, i.e. a detached, objective analysis of the evidence.
Interesting use of the word "should". Seems so imperious to me to say how this age old controversy "should" be settled. I'd venture to say that to some, matters of faith are anything but detached, objective and analytical. There are after all, learned men of faith. I wouldn't assume to tell Albert Schweitzer or Einstein how they "should" settle the matter of their Christianity, for instance. But, each their own.
It is a simple matter to concoct (or borrow) a version of theory based on intelligent design that perhaps goes too far and demonstrate that it contradicts some known scientific finding or theory. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that the universe had a creator with a design in mind. Science offers no satisfactory answer whatever to the question of beginnings. It is a fact that both in biology and in physics & cosmology there are gaps in contemporaneous theoretical models that admit possibilities on both sides of this dispute. However that is not the central question of intelligent design.
george-shouldnt we dispassionately investigate "gaps"?. ID seems to just throw down its pencils and not involve itself with anything but "investigational rhetoric" .
Snood, its interesting you bring up Einstein. Did you realize in his writings he used the word god in the plural "gods". This pissed Bishop Sheen quite off for his obvious dalliance with pantheistic nonsense. The difference with Einstein and any credible scientist is that they keep their research and their moral rudder separate. Not so with ID. These people wish to create a system of public instruction that forces a slim worldview into its " science curricula".
We are free to bring up anything we wish in science. (in Pa a teacher can bring up Creationism, even thought the US Supreme Court has spoken on this very issue in 1987)
If ID is carried forth and won, that freedom of instruction will no longer be an issue of free choice. Teachers will be required to become philosophy and religion instructors. And the world will continue to pass us by.
I sympathize with the points you make, and agree that there is a good deal of foolishness on all sides of these disputes as they are often fought and discussed.
For me the question is one we all deal with - what is this universe, and how did I get here? Is there a design or plan to it all? From that perspective there is no clear separation of science and philosophic understanding. I recognize that distinctions should be made in our civil lives and in particular the operation of our public institutions and accept them. However much depends on how these distinctions are made.
If, in our public actions, we explicitly or implicitly assert that science is the only possible source of understanding, and that the march of science will necessarily provide answers to all questions including the origins of the universe, within the bounds of conventional theory, -- then we are violating both the fundamental principles of science and philosophy and the civil contract that calls for us to stop short of enforcing beliefs we do not know are true.
There may be no way out for the controversy in schools. However my concerns there are all about the excessive government intrusion in schools in all manner of things. There are moments when I believe we would all be better served if we abolished public schools entirely and simply gave parents educational vouchers redeemable in schools of their choice.
snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:wandeljw wrote:Intelligent design theory agrees with evolution theory in part but disagrees that natural selection can account for the evolution of complex organs. It seems to me that there is more corroboration for using natural selection as an explanation than for substituting "intelligent design" as an explanation.
Whether evolution, or God, or both created life on Earth, the matter
should be settled by science, i.e. a detached, objective analysis of the evidence.
Interesting use of the word "should". Seems so imperious to me to say how this age old controversy "should" be settled. I'd venture to say that to some, matters of faith are anything but detached, objective and analytical. There are after all, learned men of faith. I wouldn't assume to tell Albert Schweitzer or Einstein how they "should" settle the matter of their Christianity, for instance. But, each their own.
Matters which are purely spiritual are one thing, but theories of the origin of life on Earth are matters of fact, and I feel perfectly confident in saying that matters of fact are the province of evidence and logic.
