OT Is George Bush Drinking?

Charlie,

Your description of the "bible belt" also applies to other areas of the
country. IN my case, Southern California.

I recall a class on the history of religion in the mediterranean area while
I was in college. A publically funded university, which I'm sure will make
Mr. Daneliuk's skin crawl...

The class was taught by a former Baptist minister who had gone on to study
Buddhism. Fascinating guy.

It took less than a week for a well intentioned but stupid student to start
refuting every thing he mentioned in the lectures with the refrain, "it
doesn't say that in the bible..."

This person disputed the very existence of other religions, claiming that
any belief system other than christianity was simply wrong...

I finally raised my hand and told her that I hadn't paid my tuition to hear
what she thought. She left the class never to return after that.

Getting back to the point I tried to make in my earlier post, the professor
wasn't demanding that her church teach his beliefs, why do christians
insist on having schools teach about theirs?

John Emmons

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
> > "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> If you
> > >>> want your children to study ID, send them to sunday school or
> > >>> bible study. Don't expose my kids to that nonsense.
> > >>>
> > >>> scott
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Such wisdom. I hope you aren't a teacher.
> > >
> > > Semantically void comeback.
> > >
> >
> > Proper comeback. Agree with, I believe it's Fletis. Strange what we
teach.
> > We have to teach them about the Indian - excuse me "First Americans,"
which
> > puzzles me, because they want to be considered "sovereign nations" -
> > beliefs. We even take them to pow-wows. We can't teach the dominant
belief
> > system or take them to its festivals, though.
>
> Nonsense. Teaching ABOUT a religion is not the same as teaching a
> religion. It is the teaching ABOUT religion that the Bible thumpers
> dislike.
>
> Comparative religion courses are anathema to religious types.
>
> >
> > Ever try to teach literature to this generation who doesn't know their
> > Bible?
> >
>
> You don't live around here, I'll bet (part of the Bible Belt). The
> Bible is often the only reading most of these kids do these days.
>

>>
>> Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of
>> probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him
>> disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used
>> the
>> quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate.
>
> Understood. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein
> published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal.
> Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in
> Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics
> he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize.
>
Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee just about had to give him the prize
based on his 1905 papers, but the one they cited was the explanation of the
photoelectric effect, the least revolutionary of the bunch. See
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/.

> I am quite confident that, if called upon to review a paper
> invoking as a natural mechanism or drawing a conclusions as
> to divine intervention he would have recommended against
> publication.
>
> No one is arguing that scientists should not believe in God or
> even be outspoken or religous issues even as they relate, in
> a philosophic sense, to their work. The argument is that
> a scientist should not intermingle religious explanations
> with natural law itself. Religion and science are close
> philosophic neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors.
>
> Einstein never proposed "God does not play dice" as a natural
> law.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Editors of scientific journals would love to publish something as
revolutionary as ID, if the work would withstand peer review of its science.
So far, ID hasn't done so, and IMHO won't. What will happen is that
continued investigations will add more and more data that support evolution
by survival of the fittest.

The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.

I am Steve #564

See
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
>: Republican for years. :-(
>
>
>
>He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
>anti-interventionist Republican.
>
>What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
>interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
>Constitution neo-con.
>


McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
first amendment in recent times? Hardly.

>And for that he should be commended.
>
> -- Andy Barss

The one thing I will give him commendations for has been his steadfast
support for the war effort and maintaining unity with the President on this
issue.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@teranews...
>> Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
>> his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
>> Democrat.
>>
>> If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
>> near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
>> in a prefect position to run.
>>
>> I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.
>
>It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
>McCain will switch parties.
>

Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
Republican for years. :-(

Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
preserving unity. A favor which McCain did not return


>todd
>



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[email protected] wrote:

<SNIP of interesting history of science>

> One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
> cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
> prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
> ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
> can be made to many of today's public school administrators.

A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
intertia in the science establishment IMO.

<More history snipped>

I stipulate your history is correct. I think you
are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas
met with from within the establishment science of their
day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right
(except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the
turning points of science we're discussing here didn't
just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of
the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance.

>
> Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
> new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
> political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
> faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
> purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
> scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
> to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
> present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
> Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.

This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary
Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular
culture without significant opposition for a long, long
time. The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
matters.

<SNIP>

>
> "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
> in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
> than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty

That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.


> "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
> constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
> intervention.

Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
*claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
in the community of scientists seem to have.

In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se
but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the
community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or
agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that
the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge
may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations.
So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science,
etc."

Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest
are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing
to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and
scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers
as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the
popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder
that a moment.


> No scientific theory will or even can disprove
> the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
> dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.

Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does.
I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of
the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always
be blind in one eye. If more scientists understood metaphysics and more
theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but
cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive
ideas. I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am
arguing for its *augmentation* . This is valid so long as everyone
involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought.

The goal is not to promote better science or better metaphysics.
The goal is to better apprehend Truth by whatever means are most
appropriate.

P.S. Oh, and for the record, some of the theologians under whom I enjoyed a
portion of my education, had the *exact same* bunker mentality,
unwillingness to engage with their challengers, slavish adherence to the
methods they best understood, and all the other stuff that I've suggested
are bad practice on the part of the science establishment. It
seems that nothing is more 'sacred' than what you already believe ...


>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

President Bush has my support (as well as a tiny bit more than
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the
fight with middle eastern muslim terrorist to the middle east.
Sorry you don't approve but you can keep drinking.
Robert Smith

Charles Bull wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Charles Bull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> http://www.chler.com/198shtml
>
> >Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
> >Your agenda is no better than his.
>
> No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
> he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
> be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.

Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Charles Bull <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
>
> Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking.
> I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few.
> But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I
> heard once:
> An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex.
>
> I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was
> due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox
> news ? <G>
>
> In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have
> voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon.
>
> In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody.
>
> Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..<G>

Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.

>>"Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.


Good for you, did you turn 21 on his first inaugural? Or is your drinking
problem his fault as well...

Huh? Is it possible that W wants to divide, and be disliked? Meaning,
he's earned it, with the guidance of Rove.

Maybe, in reality, your dividing people into two groups so
simplistically is not possible. It is silly. Most folks come down in
different parts of the spectrum (progressive, conservative,
reactionary) on different issues, and for you to categorize and judge
anyone makes as little sense as the converse. (Ever hear of McCarthy
and "pinko"?)

Some would conjure a different name for "the phony one."

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Charles Bull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
>> >
>>
>> If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.
>
>
>It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
>say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
>Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
>Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
>have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
>suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
>on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
>Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
>Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
>one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
>not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
>are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.
>


Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
idiots have the vote.)


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Vic Baron wrote:
> "Charles Bull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
> >
>
> Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be.

He claims to have quit around his 40th birthday. That and using
cocaine.

Not because he had any REAL problems with booze and coke, mind you, but
because he got religion, and the religion he got doesn't approve of
mind-altering drug use.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@teranews...
> >> Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
> >> his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
> >> Democrat.
> >>
> >> If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
> >> near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
> >> in a prefect position to run.
> >>
> >> I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.
> >
> >It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
> >McCain will switch parties.
> >

I don't know that he is yet, or ever will be willing to abandon
the Republican Party to the backsliding religious nut-jobs.

>
> Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
> Republican for years. :-(

To the extent that is true, it is true for the same reason
that Ronald Reagan gave for leaving the Democratic party.
In actuality, they didn't change that much, beyond maturation.
Their respective parties changed, leaving them rather than
vice-versa.

>
> Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
> doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
> preserving unity.
>

Meaning, I suppose that Pat Robertson realized that the recall
campaign was serving to prove exactly what McCain had said
about him and so bailed when the opportunity presented itself.

> A favor which McCain did not return

A blatant lie. McCain 'buried the hatchet' and has been a
strong Bush supporter since then.

--

FF

lgb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
> > >drinking is the least of his problems.
> > >
> >
> > ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
> > violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
> > nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
> >
> >
> Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
> universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.
>
> And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called
> "intelligent design".
>
> Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group.
>
> Or writing letters to the editor :-).

The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
> >: Republican for years. :-(
> >
> >
> >
> >He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
> >anti-interventionist Republican.
> >
> >What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
> >interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
> >Constitution neo-con.
> >
>
>
> McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
> first amendment in recent times? Hardly.
>

McCain-Feingold reminds me of the necessity to destroy a villiage
in order to save it.

Even so, it is not as bad as denying habeas corpus in order to
preserve freedom.

But of course, McCain is not the subject of this thread.

A couple of months ago I came home from work, flipped on the tube
and discovered that George W Bush was holding a press conference.
I hadn't realized noe was scheduled. As I watched, I was impressed
that this one did not seem to be a sham, scripted in advance. He
responed to the questions, for the most part addressing the substance
of the query. When he was evasive, he was skillfully evasive. Unlike
other press conferenes, even the scripted ones, and the debates
he did not repeat the same phrases like "we were attacked" and
"it's hard work" over and over again.

I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
(or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.

A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
was sober.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
> any kind of sentience could have avoided.

You would seem to be presuming a benevolent intelligence.

Ever see _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_?

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
> but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
> in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
> when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
> anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
> (or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
> misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
> a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
> experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.
>
> A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
> was sober.
>

Or he had entered that euphoric arena of a good buzz, which I think is
more likely. It is a stage similar to what I imagine an epiphany to be,
and there is just enough alteration of the system that the brain
actually works as if it is well-oiled (pun intended) for a change. Two
more drinks/lines, and things collapse into Babble, while a drink less
brings on the aphasia you mention.

Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> > > The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> > > or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> > > mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
> > > any kind of sentience could have avoided.
> > >
> >
> > With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence
> > on the world.
> > When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way
> > off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you
> > at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live
> > in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which
> > way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer.
> > Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had
> > to be created.
>
> We have the answer, it's 42.
> All we need now is the question.
>
> WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet.
>
> On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly
> inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is
> the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain
> around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in
> fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge.
>
> Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing*

Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
will.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:06:37 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
> >> >drinking is the least of his problems.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
> >> violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
> >> nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
> >>

Which could mean almost anything but appears on its face to simply
be insensible


> >>
> >Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
> >universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.

Well, maybe you understand what he or she was trying to say.

>
> I will let the absurdity of your attempt to divorce the asserted random,
> non-causal origin of the universe from the asserted non-causal random
> origin of life stand on its own.
>

Maybe you think that your vague circumspection is clever.

But I'll be damned if I can see what it has to do with George W
Bush drinking.

--

FF

lgb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
> > created in his own image started when we all began to sin.
> >
>
> Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a
> minute stop and think about this.
>
> There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs
> Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc..
>
> Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of
> having picked the right one is, at best, 5%. ...

Want to hedge your bets?

Become a Buddist.

Buddism doesn't require that you give up other religions.
About thirty years ago I read that 90% of japanese were Shinto
and 80% were Buddist.

(Doug Miller may want to check on those figures...)

--

FF

Scott wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>...
> >
> > If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.
...

> You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
> have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
> suggest you move to Canada.

So, who do you think will be the Republic candidate for President
in 2008?

> Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
> on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
> Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
> Democrat side that the masses would support.

Biden looks promising. But let's keep in mind that in 1998, pretty
much nobody had heard of GW Bush outside of Texas, in 1990 pretty
much nobody outside of Arkansas had heard of BJ Clinton, in
1974 pretty much nobody outside of Georgia had heard of Jimmy
Carter.

>You'd be hard pressed to find
> one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
> not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
> are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.

There sure as hell isn't a long list of Republic politicians with
class either. The only one I can think of is McCain and unless
Pat Robertson dies real soon now McCain won't get enough support
from the Republics to beat Dennis Kucinich (whom I would much
rather have as President than Bush, sober or not).

--

FF

lgb wrote: ...
>
> P.S. Any time you'd like to jar your intelligent design belief, get a good book on the
> Burgess shale fossils :-).

A sobering view, is that?

--

FF

Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
> > best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
> > image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
> > will.
>
> ...and I'm not arrogant enough to question anyone's faith.

I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it
gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions.

Leon wrote:
>
> I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not
> supportive of intelligent design.

You got it in one.

John Emmons wrote:
> That's because Buddhism is not a religion...

I daresay that is highly subjective. People who are in precise
agreement as to what constitutes Buddism may readily disagree on
whether or not it is a religion depending on how they they define
'religion'.

--

FF

Leon wrote:
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > That's because Buddhism is not a religion. Never has been and never will
> > be
> > unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope
> > realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth.
> >
> > John Emmons
>
> Exactly... the Pope is simply another elected official.

Although he is elected by people who were appointed by
previous Popes.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
> Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
> in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...

Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.

IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
newsgroup. It would be off-topic.

Accepting of-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
atmosphere.

You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
Off-Topic threads?

When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
podium so much as they are disgusted.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>
> >>Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
> >>in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...
> >
> >
> > Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.
> >
> > IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
> > certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
> > a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
> > journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
> > newsgroup. It would be off-topic.
>
> This argument is a red-herring.

No, it is spot on.

> Science has a philosophy
> of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned.
> It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively).
> The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the
> problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so
> using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then
> refuted or not.
>

"Intelligent Design" unless it is very ill-considered misnomer,
relies on the presumption of a divine being. That is the realm
of religion, not science.

A claim to be able to demonstrate intelligent design
scientifically, without theology is obvious double speak.

>
> >
> > Accepting off-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
> > only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
> > that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
> > it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
> > atmosphere.
>
> The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
> of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
> their respective disciplines.

Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
their specific sub-branches of science?

I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.

Science has always observed aboundant phenomena that COULD be
explained by invoking some sort of intelligence making a choice,
for example between which molecules pass thorugh a membrane and
which do not.

>
> >
> > You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
> > integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
> > what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
> > Off-Topic threads?
>
> You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
> calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
> competence of one group of scientists by another.

Which has nothing to do with patio furniture.

> There is a whole lot
> of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
> community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
> them treating the IDers.

Which was my point.

> Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
> the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
> for their Scientific claims.
>

Like everyone else they have a right to express their opinions.
Also, like everyone else, they have no right to demand that anyone
in particular listen to them.

If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
is the right of those publishers or sponsors.

The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
damn thing at all for them.

No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.

> >
> > When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
> > it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
> > scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
> > religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
> > at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
> > podium so much as they are disgusted.
>
> Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of
> outright rejection by the Science Establishment.

I can think of a few exmples but interestingly, nearly all
in the field of medicine and was outright rejected, not
by scientists, but by physicians. Ask any scientist in
any branch of biology that ever contributes to medical
knowledge and he or she will assure you that doctors are
not scientists.

There are also examples of scientists rejecting the notion
that certain engineering goals could be achieved, like
building a hydrogen bomb. But those are disagreements as
to practical applicability.

The law of conservation of energy and in particular the
concept of entropy were controversial but I'd have to look
into it further beofor concluding that they were 'outright
rejected'.

So how about some examples of scientific theories, outright
rejected at first, which were ultimately accepted?

Most new scientific theories that are eventually accepted,
and indeed, many that are unltimately rejected, are immediately
accepted as _scientifically viable_ from the outset.

Examples include the evolutionary theories of Lamarck, Wallace
and Darwin, the Copernican theory of the Solar System the
Corpuscular theory of light, Special and General relativity,
the Big Bang theory, quantum theory. Not everyone in the field
accepted them from the outset but they weren't rejected as
not appropriate for publication or debate.


> "Mainstream Science"
> rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
> in the status quo.
> So much so that there is a well-worn saying
> in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."

So well worn *I* never heard it befor.

>
> The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am
> trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is
> more in mathematics.

Perhaps you are familiar with the story about the debate
on the existance of God between Diederot and Euler?

> I am troubled by a discipline that claims
> to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to
> circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with
> an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy.
>

'IDers' are plainly not the only people whose philosophy has
been excluded from the public schools or scientific journals.

Lots of people who claim to to have theories based on sound
science do not get published. (Well a few self-publish on
UseNet). The obvious difference between those and the 'IDers'
is that the former generally do not have well-funded and
political and religiously motivated sponsors.

But sometimes they do. Back in the early 1980's there was
an attempt to force a more Bibically literal brand of
Creationism into the scientific literature and the public
schools. They also relied on legal arguments but died
back after a few setbacks in the court system. Whereas
'Creatiionsim' and the oxymoronic 'Scientific Creationsim'
were ckommonly heard back then, there was not one peep
about 'Intelligent Design'. While it may be that the
origins of 'ID' go back befor then, it was not until
that set back for America's Taliban wannabes that "Intelligent
Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence.

The bottom line is that 'Intelligent Design' is a plain
english statement of the existance of a designer.

Some religious sects for not speak their name for the Divine
Being for religions I do not quite understand. But I do
understand why the "Intelligent Designer" do not speak
the name for their "Designer". It for the same reasons
that some other cults won't tell you that the beleive in
(non-divne) extraterestrial beings.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I am well aware of the methods, claims, and philosophy of science.

But evidently not the History.

> No need to condescend. Your tone is emblematic of the baked in
> arrogance of today's Science Establishment. Anyone who questions
> your orthodoxy is sneered upon. From Tycho Brache onward,
> there have always been the "wise men" of each generation to refused
> to accept the possibility they were wrong about something. It
> took singularities of thought from Galileo, Newton, Einstein,
> and all the rest to kick Science to the next level.

There is so much that is factually wrong with that paragraph
it is hard to decide where to start. Perhaps a more or less
chronological approach will serve.

You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the
next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the
Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is
not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that
had to be kicked and it often kicked back.

Your first example, is an exception. He kicked Science and
Science resisted and won because he was WRONG.

Tycho Brahe, in the face of religious opposition to the
Copernican model came up with his own model for the solar
system, a sort of middle ground model that pleased the
religious establishment without totally abandoning recent
progress in science. IOW, Brahe was a backslider. To
conform to established religious decrees as to what constituted
truth his model had the Earth at the center of the Solar
System, with the Sun and the Moon in orbits about it, but
then incorporated the Copernican concept by having the
remaining planets orbit the Sun.

One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
can be made to many of today's public school administrators.

A few centuries later one has to wonder if Brahe did not
construct his model as a mockery of the religious viewpoint.
If so, it appears that the clerics didn't get the joke which
probably delighted Brahe even further.

The scientific community resisted and ultimately rejected
Brahe's theory not because it was new, but because it
lacked scientific merit. Like ID, it was a contrivance
developed to incorporate what had become scientifically
undeniable into the previously established faith-based
philosphy so as to make it palatable to those who were as
poliltically powerful as they were scientifically ignorant.

OTOH, the Copernican theory, open support of which put
men in mortal danger at the hands of the religious and
political establishments, was none-the-less widely and
rapidly accepted in the scientific community because of
its scientific merit, politics notwithstanding. Copernicus
didn't need to kick anyone or anything.

(I note you didn't mention Copernicus, possibly just an oversight.)

Galileo advanced the Copernican theory through his observations
and laid the groundwork for modern physics. For this he became
the most respected scientist of his day, in the scientific
community, but was feared and loathed (e.g. "sneered at")
by the political and religious establishment which was concerned
ONLY with what they perceived to be the societal implications
of his work. The scientific merits of his work were NOT a
consideration on the part of his oppressors.

Newton, benefitted by living in a more enlighted time and country.
Newton was lauded both in the scientific community and by his
and foreign governments for his achievements. The scientific
community did NOT resist Newton's contributions because their
scientific merit was immediately clear. Newton didn't have
to kick Science, Science came clamoring to his door eager for
his work.

Einstein's story is similar to Newton's. He received his
Master's degree for the Special Theory of Relativity and
the Nobel prize for his body of work in 1905. That is
hardly 'sneering' on the part of Scientific 'orthodoxy'.

As you know, when the Nazis came to power Einstein and other
"Jewish Physicists" came under fire from politicians who
clearly had no concern for the scientific merits of their
work but found it both politically convenient to demonize
them, and easy to accomplish as their consituency had no
real understanding of or concern for the scientific merits
of their work.

Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.

None of the scientists you mentioned were "sneered at" by
Scientific Orthodoxy. None of them "Kicked Science" to the
next level in the sense of having to overcome some sort of
entrained philosophical resistance. Anybody sneering or
who needed to be kicked was either in the minority or a
nonscientist to begin with.

Two other scientists you did not mention are Darwin and
Lamarck.

During the later half of the nineteenth century the school
of evolutionary theories identified with Lamarck was a widely
accepted competitor with the theory of slow mutation and natural
selection advanced by Darwin and Wallace.

Ultimately, 'Lamarckism' though sustained several decades in
the Soviet Union because of its appeal to that totalitarian
government, died out largely because some of its predictions
proved to be false while predictions based on slow mutation and
natural selection proved to be true.

Later, genetic theory provided a theoretical mechanism by which
the inheritance of the new traits could occur, something both
theories had lacked, and later still the discovery of chromosones
and ultimately a physical, molecular basis for genes, provided
a reproducible physical basis for understanding both inheritance
and mutation.

Together those pretty much put the evolutionary theory advanced
by Darwin and Wallace on a firm material base.

There was considerable reason to be skeptical of evolutionary
theories that relied on mutation and inheritance before
underlying mechnisms for those phenomena were discovered.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. To argue against mutation
(micro or macro) and natural selection one must come up
with a reasonable hypothesis as to why those mutations
and that inheritance will not occur. And then one must test
that hypothesis.

"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty
much the evolutionary equivalent of Tycho Brahe putting the
Earth back at the center of the solar system while leaving
the planets in orbit about the sun. But with one important
exception. Brahe devised his alternative but politically
pleasing model befor the discovery of the theory of gravity
which provided the underlying mechanism for the Copernican
model. The "Intelligent Designers" came up with theirs
long after the underlying mechanisms supporting mainstream
evolutionary theory were well-understood.

"Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
intervention. No scientific theory will or even can disprove
the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>
> This is not exactly right. *Some* Intelligent Design theories are proposed
> as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory. There are however other
> "intelligent design" theories (aka "authorship theories") that posit the
> existence of an intelligent creator that operated *by means of evolution*.

Can you state a testable hypothesis that can be used to discriminate
between the operation of evolution by an intelligent creator, and
the operation of evolution without an intelligent creator?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
> ...
>
> >
> > One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> > "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> > to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> > it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
>
> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> to avoid having this debate.

What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
astrologers and polygraphers have.

Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.

Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
in reality, flock together.

That the Soviets supported Lamarckism is not proof that
Lamarckism was wrong. But by the time it came to pass that
the Soviet Government was the ONLY supporter of Lamarckism it
was time to question either the honesty or the sanity as
well as the competence of the Larmackists of that era.

Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
someone else's!

You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.

I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe
they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious
supporters.


> Even more importantly, there is still some
> fair debate to be had about just how many
> "iterations" there really were. Evolutionary
> theory is still open to a lot of interesting
> criticism even without ID or authorship ideas.
> That is, criticism within the framework of today's
> Science.
>

Of course.

> For example, evolution *within* a particular species,
> over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from
> less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms
> is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in
> biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not
> demonstrated by direct experiment. If they
> were, the discussion about Evolution would
> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> Ted Kennedy.

And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
process to occur.

A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.

Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
by extrapolation from present day motion.

If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
on continental drift would THAT upset you?

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:

>
>
> One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
> -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
> problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
> theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
> a scientific comment.
>
>

Well, we might try another quote from Darwin: "We can allow satellites,
planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed
by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by
special act."

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>charlie b wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
> >>>classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
> >>>might be discussed in science classes.
> >>
> >>It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
> >>part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
> >>discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
> >>religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
> >>secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
> >>another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
> >>knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
> >>at least the ones who taught me.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right?
>
> No. I am not Catholic nor do I have much patience
> for the RC church on lots of different levels
> (social, philosophical, political ...)

No surprise to me, having had a bit of Catholic education
myself.

>
> >
> > One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> > "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> > to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> > it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
>
> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> to avoid having this debate.

Astrologers claim they have a scientific case to make
that planetary motions affect human behaviour. I submit
that it is not at all inapropriate to deny them space
in Astronomy and Psychology Journals even though some
Astorlogers, unlike ALL IDers deny that there is any
metaphysical component or conclusion in their work.

Scientifically, ID is a nonstarter because it presumes,
invokes, or draws conclusions about a metaphysical influence.
Science by its very nature purposefully excludes metaphysical
considerations. Science is a search for physical explanations
for natural phenomena.



>
> > They overlook the billions of years of trial and
> > error that went into how that complexity developed.
> > If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't
> > be a need for multiple iterations of a design to
> > meet a specific environment/set of conditions.
>
> You don't know that. It is entirely possible that
> an intelligent designer incorporated evolutionary
> processes into the development of the Universe.
> It is possible that multiple iterations were
> "created" to make the resulting system "adaptive"
> so that best design wins - a sort of genetic
> algorithm approach.

But that is cetainly NOT what is at issue with the ID.

Any number of scientists who are adherants of religions
that include creation mythology regard natural law as
having been written by God's hand. None-the-less they
recognize that science is the search for understanding of
those laws, not the identification of the author.

...

> >
> > But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we
> > (males) still don't have hair that'll last
> > a lifetime :), at least not me.
>
> That's because we modern humans have the bad
> manners to live long beyond the duration needed
> to reproduce. A truly counter-evolutionary
> behavior.
>

Not so fast. When grandparents assist in the raising of
their grandchildren the parents who are in the prime of life
are freed to expend more of their time on other matters
important to the survival of the species. Thus there
is an evolutionary advantage to long life which may outweigh
the cost in additional resources used to sustain that long
life.

--

FF

BTW, none of this has anything to do with George W Bush drinking,
but it is STILL off-topic.

This discussion now fall squarely within the subject matter of
talk.origins but I suppose people who want Scientific Journals
to publish papers about God are not going to be inclined at all
to moving this thread to a newsgroup where it belongs.

Not, I daresay, a coincidence.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 16:16:03 EDT, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Steve Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
> >> for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
> >> pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
> >
> >That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
> >design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
> >reading of the Genesis account.
> >
> >> public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
> >> scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
> >
> >Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
> >in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
> >most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
> >taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
> >or claims.
> >
>
> Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a
> certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that
> relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the
> initial genesis of the universe ...

Which is an issue of cosmology, not evolutionary biology and I
daresay that NO Journal of nor conference on Evolutionary Biology
will or should accept papers on cosmology.


> to which they pledge their allegience to
> the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and
> logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that
> cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause.
> The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that
> scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and
> substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes).
> Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang
> and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other
> theology.

Aside from the confabulation I addressed above, it is clear that
you do not undersand the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang theory does
not presume that the Universe was preceded by nothing.

However, "Creation Science" does presume that God Created the
Universe, "from the void".

Of course, like most scientists, I don't have a problem with that.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whom is a scientist
and whom is not almost everyone who calls himself a scientist
does have a problem with religionist insisting that "God did it"
must be an acceptable element of scientific theory.

For crying out loud, any time someone runs accross something they
can't explain they can just declare that "God did it" and be
done with it. Science came into existance precisely because
some people decided to look for non-divine casuality.

>
> One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
> -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
> problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
> theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
> a scientific comment.

Before explaining why your final statement is plainly wrong let me
proceed on the assumption that the quote is reasonably accurate
and suggest a probable context. Natural Selection and adapted
traits were readily understood and observed. The stumbling block
for evolution theory in the 19th Century was the issue of
inheritance. While selective breeding was understood to the
extend that it had becomea very useful process there was still
no underlying physical process that could account for the
inheritance of traits whether they had been selected for or
acquired.

This was equally a problem for Lamarck and Darwin. So probably
Darwin's remarks was in the context of THAT problem.

Need I point out how easy it would have been for either Larmarck
or Darwin to address that deficiency by modifying the second laws
of their respective theories to say:

"Those traits are passed on to the next generation by Divine
intervention."

Logically, their theories would then be proven but only if,
a priori_ you accept a logic that allows metaphysical intervention
in the material world. To their credit neither man resorted
to that, the oldest excuse for an explanation that is to be
found in the historical record. They had enough backbone (or
not enough chutzpah) to make such a claim.

So the statement attributed to Darwin: "yes, there were problems,
but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't
based on creation" IS a very scientific statement.

Scentific theories are by their very nature the best explanations
for Natural phenomena that are independent of metaphysical
considerations.

Until you accept that, you reject science.

"God chose to do it this way" is not an element of a scientific
theory. It is an excuse to not do science at all.

--

FF

George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the
> > next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the
> > Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is
> > not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that
> > had to be kicked and it often kicked back.
> >
>
> You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and
> religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus
> do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower.

No and I suggest you read what I went on to write about each
of them. If some contemporaries of Copernicus were reluctant
to accept the Copernican model, or spoke out against it, maybe
it was because others who did not were being burned at the stake.
That is not an example of scientists allowing THEIR politics
and religion ot get in their way.

Fact is, prior to Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary
motion there was no scientifically compelling reason to prefer
a heliocentric model over a geocentric one. Kepler's laws
made teh heliocentric model more attractive becuase it then
had predictive value, albeit through correlation, not causative
considerations. The discovery of the law of gravity and the
developement of dymanics were needed to provide a sound
theoretical basis on which to prefer one over the other.

A reluctance to accept a new theory that lacks a sound scientific
basis to prefer it over existing theory unless and until such
a basis is demonstrated is not adherance to orthodoxy.

>
> "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous
> physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him.

Finally? In spite of him? Of the four papers cited for Einstein's
Nobel prize, three relied on quantum mechanics. That was in 1905.
At that time, Special Relativity, the only non-quantum paper cited,
was the theory most in doubt.

As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery)
said:

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too.

I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at
Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus,
Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown
when they see one who laughed at Bozo.

The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at
"Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design".

--

FF

The question remains, unanswered: Is George Bush drinking?
(And how could you tell)


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>charlie b wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>> One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> >>> "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> >>> to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> >>> it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
> >>
> >> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> >> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> >> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> >> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> >> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> >> to avoid having this debate.
> >
> >
> > What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
> > can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
> > hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
> > astrologers and polygraphers have.
> >
> > Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
> > silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
> > to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.
>
> You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here
> but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science*
> (or at least they say they are).

One of mistakes is accepting that the IDers are making
"claims of science", on their say so alone, and then extrapolating
from that to the conclusion that they are not getting their
articles published because they are being repressed by "Scientific
Orthodoxy".

Instead of invokig conspiracy therory, shouldn't you consider
the likelihood that they are not being published because their
papers do not rise to the standards, or conform to the subject
matter of the journals to which they are submitted?

Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers
and compare them to the articles that are being published in
those same Journals beofor accusing editors and peers about whom
you truly know nothing, of malice or iconoclasty?

> "We will never know" whether
> or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
> peer review of those claims.

What makes you think there has been no peer review? Maybe
those papers were went out for peer review and the peers
were uninimous in ther comments to the editors that the
papers were crap.

For that matter, can you be so sure than any 'IDer' actrually
submitted any such paper in the first place?


> > ...
> > Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
> > doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
> > dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
> > agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
> > in reality, flock together.
>
> Ad hominem

No no, that was guilt by association. It is not ad hominem to call
a dishonest person, a dishonest person.

>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
> > Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
> > minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
> > to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
> > multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
> > they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
> > someone else's!
>
> No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited
> to evaluate claims made in/against their field.

Evidently those experts when acting in their roles as
editors of Journals in their fields, or peers who review
those papers have concluded that the putative papers in
question are not appropriate for publication. So why
don't you accept their evaluation?

>
> >
> > You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
> > they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
> > are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
> > opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.
>
> No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified
> the IDers might have a point.

I am by no means sure that I believe you.

Astronomers do not debate Astrologers or accept their
papers for publication in Astronomy Journals, the American
Lung Association does not debate the cigarette companies
or allow them to publish in their literature.

Simply engaging in the debate, no matter how ludricous or
indefensible the position of the opponent may be, lends
credence to the misperception that there is a controversy.

In science, there is no ID controversy because "God did
it that way" puts the issue outside of the boundaries of
science itself.



> >> the discussion about Evolution would
> >> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
> >> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> >> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> >> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> >> Ted Kennedy.
> >
> >
> > And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
> > ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
> > process to occur.
> >
> > A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
> > like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.
> >
> > Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
> > from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
> > like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
> > by extrapolation from present day motion.
>
> All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment
> is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone.
> The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility
> that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker
> of the methods available to science.

No the ideas are rejected for publication in a scientific Journal
because they are fundamentally metaphysical in nature. (Or rather,
I presume they are. You have not yet shown that any ID article
ahs ever been written, let alone submitted for publication.)

Whereas Scientific Journals uniformly reject papers confabulating
metaphysics with physical reality there are plenty of Journals
devoted to Metaphysical Considerations that do not mind inclusion
of some physical considerations. The IDers can publish there.
Indeed, since the sine quo non of ID is the inclusion of a
metaphysical element, by your argument it is the metaphysicists
who are most competent to evaluate it. The Evolutionary biologists
freely admit to having no professional expertise in metaphysics.

...
> >
> > If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
> > on continental drift would THAT upset you?
> >
>
> If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new
> science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing,
> yes it would.

That arguement adn some above, demonstrate a profound of the
proces sof publication is a Scientific Journal.

Pretty much every paper that is submitted gets a hearing. It
doesn't get to trial (e.g. publication) unless it passes peer
review. Probably most don't make it to peer review for the
same reasons that most lawsuits are returned to the petitioner
by a clerk without even being reviewed by a judge.

Of course we (including you) won't know for sure unless we
see some examples of what you claim to be happening.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument
> and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues
> separated...
>

Do you suppose that maybe that makes it difficult for them to get a
paper accepted for publication?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> <SNIP of interesting history of science>
>
> > One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
> > cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
> > prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
> > ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
> > can be made to many of today's public school administrators.
>
> A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
> the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
> trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
> intertia in the science establishment IMO.

That could become true if the 'science establishment'
backslides to the point where it must placate the
'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied
to a stake.

>
> <More history snipped>
>
> I stipulate your history is correct. I think you
> are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas
> met with from within the establishment science of their
> day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right
> (except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the
> turning points of science we're discussing here didn't
> just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of
> the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance.

Perhaps you confuse pointed argumetn and other thorough
vetting _with_ resistance. Scientists accept new science
as fast as it can be shown to be correct. Most new science
is shown to be incorrect so of course scientist do not
rush to embrace new theory just because it looks like it
_might be_ correct. Scientists do not determine the correctness
of theory by argument alone, They require physical evidence
and THAT Mr Daneliuk is one of the most important features
that distinguishes science from metaphysics.

> >
> > Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
> > new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
> > political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
> > faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
> > purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
> > scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
> > to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
> > present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
> > Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.
>
> This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary
> Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular
> culture without significant opposition for a long, long
> time.

False to fact as any one who publishes shcoolbooks or
teaches biology to college freshmen can tell you.
The "Creation Science" movement had not yet died away
before the "ID" rebranding of it emerged and at the
time the creation science 'controversy' was created,
evolutionary biology was by no means ubiquitous in
the public schools. My Boss, a well educated man
had never heard of Lamarck before I mentioned him
in a conversation.

The fact is that the central theory of modern biology gets
short shrift at best in almost all the public schools.

> The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
> hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
> rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
> that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
> matters.

You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question'
evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment'
in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers
of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this
conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'.
I daresay demonization is apt.

>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
> > in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
> > than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty
>
> That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
> theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.

But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element
of each is "God did it".

>
>
> > "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
> > constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
> > intervention.
>
> Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
> theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
> *claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
> hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
> claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
> in the community of scientists seem to have.

Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why
is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected
because they do not rise to the objective standards of the
journals to which they have been submitted.

You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how
could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty
and that is why journals have peer review.

Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze
upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how
thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in
controversy?

The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to GOD published
becuase they want to use it as a means of forcing religious
teaching back into the public schools.

>
> In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se
> but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the
> community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or
> agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that
> the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge
> may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations.
> So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science,
> etc."

I daresay that is the sort of approach you typically label
"ad hominem". However, I will point out that there are legions
of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions
who also regard ID as unscientific.

>
> Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest
> are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing
> to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and
> scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers
> as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the
> popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder
> that a moment.
>

The mere act of engagement lends credence to their claims.
If the AGU were to debate teh FLat Earth societ on the
issue of the shape of the Earth the papers the next day would
run the story under the headline "Shape of the earth debated,
opinions differ". An then the flat Earthers would argue
for the inclusion of their model into the public school
curriculum, or at least for the schools ot be llowed to
"Teach the Controversy" but not in the a class devoted
to consideration of current social issue but in the Science
Classrooms.

But the reality is that the IDers are worse than that. They
are afraid that teaching that it is possible to understand
something without invoking God will lead students away
from God and religion. If that happens, how woul Pat
Robertson keep his programming on the air?

>
> > No scientific theory will or even can disprove
> > the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
> > dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.
>
> Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does.
> I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of
> the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always
> be blind in one eye.

It may be argued that a person who approaches life ignoring
metaphysics is blind in one eye but a scientist approaching
science while setting aside his metaphysical beliefs is deaf
in both eyes.

> If more scientists understood metaphysics and more
> theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but
> cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive
> ideas.

THAT is not a problem.

> I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am
> arguing for its *augmentation* .

Some people argue that silicone implants augment breasts.
Others argue that they merely enlarge the breasts without
augemntaion in any real sense. It is an issue incontroversy.

But there is no controversy as to whether or not silicone
IS breast tissue.

> This is valid so long as everyone
> involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought.

But you repeatedly argue for a merger of the two, specifically for
the publication in scientific journals of papers pupoprting to present
scientific evidence for the existance of God.

--

FF

George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery)
> > said:
> >
> > They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
> > Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
> >
> > I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at
> > Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus,
> > Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown
> > when they see one who laughed at Bozo.
> >
> > The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at
> > "Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design".
> >
> Disengage yourself from the argumentative mode and read as if to understand
> the writer, versus spin an unrelated set of paragraphs.
>
> Every scientist does, in spite of your contention, have a belief set that
> colors their skepticism and even denial of others' explanations of reality.
> The source may be religion in the traditional sense, environmentalism, love
> or hate of technology in general, tradition, even "political correctness" -
> makes not a difference. The point is, nobody individually, nor science as
> an entity, starts tabula rasa in evaluating observations. Wouldn't get far
> if they did, because science presumes rules govern the universe, and they
> use the rules as much to rule out as to predict.

OK, agreed.

I trust you will also agree that science as an institution and
scientists as people recognize this phenomenum to be a flaw,
even if they are blind to when they themselves personally
are guilty of it.

Which is why a major effort is made in science to adopt protocols
that protect against, among other things, observer bias.

It is also why there is peer review and why an editor of a peer-
reviewed Journal can justify returning without further comment,
a paper that alleges or draws conclusions about divine intervetion.
That is a pretty clear indicator that the author has crossed
the line between objectivity and religious/political beliefs.

>
> Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of
> probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him
> disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used the
> quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate.

Understood. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein
published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal.
Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in
Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics
he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize.

I am quite confident that, if called upon to review a paper
invoking as a natural mechanism or drawing a conclusions as
to divine intervention he would have recommended against
publication.

No one is arguing that scientists should not believe in God or
even be outspoken or religous issues even as they relate, in
a philosophic sense, to their work. The argument is that
a scientist should not intermingle religious explanations
with natural law itself. Religion and science are close
philosophic neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors.

Einstein never proposed "God does not play dice" as a natural
law.

--

FF

Odinn wrote:
> On 9/30/2005 8:03 AM George mumbled something about the following:
>...
> >
> > "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous
> > physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him.
> >
> >
> Actually, the saying is. "God does not play dice with the universe" (you
> missed the word 'play'). ...

Not to be too persnickedy about it but I expect it was first said
in German. Probably both of your translations are correct, since
'to dice' and 'to play dice' mean the same thing in English, the
latter is simply more commonplace, though my preference would be
the more anachronistic 'to cast dice'.

--

FF

Steve Peterson wrote:
> > ...
> > Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein
> > published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal.
> > Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in
> > Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics
> > he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize.
> >
> Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee just about had to give him the prize
> based on his 1905 papers, but the one they cited was the explanation of the
> photoelectric effect, the least revolutionary of the bunch. See
> http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/.

An excellent article but I disagree on one point:

While I, and certainly nearly every other physicist alive today
would not hesitate to declare the Special Theory of Relativity
to be by far the most important work published in physics that
year, most I daresay would consider his paper On the Photoelectric
Effect, to be much more important than the other two. Brownian
motion was already qualitatively understood, and his paper on
the Specific Heats of Salts, simply did not not have the far
reaching effects of either of the two.

As you probably know, in his paper on the Photoelectric Effect
Einstein resolved a ~50-year old conundrum that was so vexing
to Phyisics that it was called "The Ultraviolet Catastrophe".
By successfully applying quantum theory to the problem Einstein
cemented the rols of the quanta in theoretical physics.

--

FF

George wrote:
> "Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%qC%[email protected]...
> It is scientifically
> > inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
> > pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be
> > introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
> >
>
> "Inappropriate?"
>
> "Irresponsible?"
>
> Sounds like value judgment to me.
>

Me too.

Dunno about you, but if my tax dollars are going to pay for
public education I want to get good value in return.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Peterson wrote:
> > ... See
> > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/.
>
> An excellent article but I disagree on one point:
>


Apologies for misremembering the timeline. By 1921 EInstein
had published a great body of work more important than his
paper on the photoelectric effect. But outside of relativity,
I daresay his work on the photoelectric effect was the
most important.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "Bruce Barnett"
>...
>
>
> > There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
> > But you ignored my earlier point.
>
> > There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.

I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
no evolutionary 'dead ends'.

> > We CAN use evolution to predict results.
>
>
> You can't predict anything with evolution.

False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
is why some come to be favored over others.

An hypothesis entails a prediction. But recall what Niehls Bohr
said about prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
in DNA studies.

>
> If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
> be a hypothesis.

Evolution is not an hypothesis. Evolution is a field of study
within biology. Over the centuries there have been several theories
within that field, those theories spawn hypotheses which can be tested.

> ... That's
> why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.

They should be given a better education about the process of
science.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:50:51 -0500, "Battleax" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
> >drinking is the least of his problems.
> >
>
> ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
> violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
> nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
>


mark-

you're confusing issues, but I think you knew that.

evolution doesn't address the question of where life came from. it flat
out has nothing to do with genesis, either in terms of supporting it,
refuting it or making any kind of comment on it at all. what evolution
says is that species (ones that are already here, OK...) adapt to
changes in their environment and that those adaptations result in the
differentiation between species.

that's all it does.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> >
>
> This is an argument by misdirection at best. The only reason these are
> not "scientific questions" at the moment is because of the current *philosophical*
> assumptions of science.

It is basic philosphical assumptions that distinguish science from
other processes for aquiring knowledge.

> The very sufficiency of "the scientific approach" is
> potentially on trial ...

Mathematics is insufficient to prove or disprove all theora. Does
this suggest to you that those theora be resolved by non-Mathematical
means?

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >> "Bruce Barnett"
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >> > There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
> >> > But you ignored my earlier point.
> >>
> >> > There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
> >
> > I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
> > intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
> > no evolutionary 'dead ends'.
>
>
> Meaning what? Extinction or an unchanged design? Neither
> one implies the lack of a creator unless you presume to know
> his purpose.
>

Meaning that it is an hypotheses that follows from the presumption
(e.g. law) of an omnipotent intelligent designer. Sort of like
the prediction, from transmutation theory of Jewish males born
without foreskins.

Regardless, if you do not like my choice of hypothesis please suggest
some of your own. I hope you understand that a theory that does
not suggest testable hypotheses is not a scientific theory.

>
> >> > We CAN use evolution to predict results.
>
>
> >> You can't predict anything with evolution.
>
>
> > False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
> > is why some come to be favored over others.
>
>
> Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
> there are competing theories.

That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples
of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed,
you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They
follow a couple of paragraphs below.

Further, Without competing theories, there could be no progress
in Science.

Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete.
Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible
with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even
observations consistant with tranmutation theory.

>
> > An hypothesis entails a prediction.
>
>
> Not necessarily. A prediction entails a predetermined end result,
> a hypothesis could entail anything.

Perhaps as you use the term. In the scientific method 'hypothesis'
is a term of art with a more restricted defintion. An hypothesis
is a statement that follows from a theory. If the theory
is true, the hypothesis will be true.

>
> > But recall what Niehls Bohr said about
> > prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
> > about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
> > may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
> > been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
> > the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
> > which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
> > in DNA studies.
>
>
> >> If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
> >> be a hypothesis.
>
>
> > Evolution is not an hypothesis.
>
>
> Sure it is. Unless you are limiting the term to "micro-evolution".

An hypothesis is a statement, not a single word.

>
>
> > Evolution is a field of study
> > within biology.
>
>
> Evolution, in the broader sense, is a theory. There certainly is the study
> of evolution, but I don't think it's considered a study of a study.

To be precise, Evolutionary Biology is a field within Biology, I used
'evolution' as shorthand for 'Evolutionary Biology'. It can also refer
to a family of theories, or a natural process or group of natural
processes.

Of course there are other definitions that lie outside of the context
of the current discussion.

>
>
> > Over the centuries there have been several theories
> > within that field, those theories spawn hypotheses which can be tested.
> >
> >> ... That's
> >> why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.
>
>
> > They should be given a better education about the process of
> > science.
>
>
> More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
> a very general term.

Yes we have Computer Science, Library Science, Political Science,
even Christian Science.

Those as fundamentally different uses of the _word_ science as
compared to the sciences of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and
so on.

> I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
> unless there are other motives.

If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom
the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law
to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe
in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would
promote a particular religious doctrine.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ....
>
> You need to actually go read some IDers because you keep erecting strawmen
> as you cling to your position. They are attacking the method of *knowledge*
> used by contemporary science.

I'm not sure what you mean by "method of knowledge". I daresay the
proper object of "method of..." must be a verb, or a noun that is the
name of an avtivity of some sort. Possibly your typing was slower
than your thinking and some words were omitted.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, and the body of knowledge
acquired thereby.

ID's proponents are attacking that method by trying to impose a
requirement that scientific theory consider as a natural law,
the existance of a god.

> A system that has not been around all that long
> (essentially from Darwin forward) and which has some fairly large gaping holes in
> its assumption (the "something from nothing" premise being one of the biggest ones).

"Something from nothing" is the ID premise so what is your point?

> You tone and intensity is religious here not inquisitive...
>

Hmpfth.

--

FF
.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> ...
> Which is why I am reading up on all this at the
> moment.
>

You may find useful information and your articles will be
on-topic and perhaps even welcomed at talk.origins.

--

FF

I STILL do not see what this has to do with Geroge Bush Drinking

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >> >> "Bruce Barnett"
> >> >>...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
> >> >> > But you ignored my earlier point.
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
> >> > intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
> >> > no evolutionary 'dead ends'.
> >>
> >>
> >> Meaning what? Extinction or an unchanged design? Neither
> >> one implies the lack of a creator unless you presume to know
> >> his purpose.
>
> > Meaning that it is an hypotheses that follows from the presumption
> > (e.g. law) of an omnipotent intelligent designer. Sort of like
> > the prediction, from transmutation theory of Jewish males born
> > without foreskins.
>
>
> It would be another wild guess hypothesis then.

Huh? How would it be a wild guess? (And what would be the
antecedant guess making this 'another' one?). The hypothesis
follows straight from the observation that Jewish males have been
circumcized in infancy for thousands of years, surely hundreds
of generations.

> We know that gravity
> exists and we know some of it's properties well enough to call them
> laws but we don't know all there is to know about it, even though
> it is testable and observable. I don't see how anyone can presume
> any laws about an Intelligent Designer since he would beyond our
> scope of observation.

Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!

>
>
> > Regardless, if you do not like my choice of hypothesis please suggest
> > some of your own. I hope you understand that a theory that does
> > not suggest testable hypotheses is not a scientific theory.
>
>
> All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
> unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
> If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
> they do so out of faith, not science.

Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity
of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess. Not only
can one do science with or without considering the possibility,
indeed, the scince one does, in either case, will be the same.

>
>
> >> >> > We CAN use evolution to predict results.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You can't predict anything with evolution.
> >>
> >>
> >> > False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
> >> > is why some come to be favored over others.
> >>
> >>
> >> Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
> >> there are competing theories.
>
>
> > That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples
> > of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed,
> > you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They
> > follow a couple of paragraphs below.
>
>
> I answered the assertion.

With a repetition of statement I showed to be false.

>
>
> > Further, Without competing theories, there could be no progress
> > in Science.
>
>
> I don't follow that either. How does having multitudes of theories
> prove what we are discussing?
>

You lost me.

>
> > Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete.
> > Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible
> > with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even
> > observations consistant with tranmutation theory.
>
>
> Sure, how about the Cambrian Explosion? Lots of theories, no answers.

Al theories are answers. Take for example, the question, "Why
the Cambrian Explosion?" There are lots of answers, maybe
some are correct.

>
>
>
> >> > An hypothesis entails a prediction.
>
>
> >> Not necessarily. A prediction entails a predetermined end result,
> >> a hypothesis could entail anything.
>
>
> > Perhaps as you use the term. In the scientific method 'hypothesis'
> > is a term of art with a more restricted defintion. An hypothesis
> > is a statement that follows from a theory. If the theory
> > is true, the hypothesis will be true.
>
>
> No problem there. My point was that the hypothesis doesn't prove
> anything.

Of course not. An hypothesis is a statement to be tested.
It is the testing that proves or disproves something.

>
>
> >> > But recall what Niehls Bohr said about
> >> > prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
> >> > about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
> >> > may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
> >> > been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
> >> > the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
> >> > which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
> >> > in DNA studies.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
> >> >> be a hypothesis.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Evolution is not an hypothesis.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure it is. Unless you are limiting the term to "micro-evolution".
> >
> > An hypothesis is a statement, not a single word.
>
>
> That's what I was addressing. The hypothesis or theory of
> evolution.

That doesn't make any sense. Hypotheses are suggest by theories.
E.g. given a modern horse and a modern cow most evolutionary theories
predict that there should have been a species that was a common
ancestor of both. One looks to the fossil record to test that
hypothesis.

>
>
> >> > Evolution is a field of study
> >> > within biology.
>
>
> >> >> ... That's
> >> >> why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.
> >>
> >>
> >> > They should be given a better education about the process of
> >> > science.
> >>
> >>
> >> More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
> >> a very general term.
>
>
> > Yes we have Computer Science, Library Science, Political Science,
> > even Christian Science.
>
>
> > Those as fundamentally different uses of the _word_ science as
> > compared to the sciences of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and
> > so on.
>
>
> True, so science doesn't exclude an Intelligent Designer.
>

It is silent on the subject. IJ a similar vein, biology is silent
on cosmology.

>
> >> I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
> >> unless there are other motives.
>
>
> > If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom
> > the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law
> > to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe
> > in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would
> > promote a particular religious doctrine.
>
>
> Which one?

Intelligent Design.

> I would assert that to not include one and give the
> students the sense that biology started itself, which *is* taught,
> is religion.

Here is why your assertion is wrong. Silence may be simple
silence, a non-statement. But if silence is to be interpretted,
silence implies consent.

Silence on the issue of God implies consent to whatever belief
each student brings to school.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> *Micro evolution* (within a given species) has been demonstrated.
> *Macro evolution* (moving from lower- to higher biocomplexity and
> achieving new speciation) has never been demonstrated.
>

You know that is false.

What you call *Macro-evolution* is demonstrated in the fossil
record. You may not be convinced by that demonstration, (and
if not, why not?). But THAT does justify your claim that the
demonstration does not exist.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "Scott Lurndal"
> > "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> writes:
> >>
> >><[email protected]>
> >
> >>
> >>> They should be given a better education about the process of
> >>> science.
> >>
> >>
> >>More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
> >>a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
> >>unless there are other motives.
>
> > I see no reason to exclude the Church of the Flying Spaghetti
> > Monster either. They are both equally [im]probable.
>
>
>
> That's insane. Einstein probably knew more about it than you
> and he believed in a ID. There's no reason to believe in your
> example.
>

You're insane. I probably know more about Einstein than you
do. At some times in his life he was an atheist at others,
a theist, at times I would suppose he was agnostic.

But I daresay at no time in his adult life would he ever have
recommended ID be published in any scientific journal or taught
in any science class.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Bruce Barnett wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
> >
> >
> >>>>There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
> >>
> >>I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
> >>intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
> >>no evolutionary 'dead ends'.
> >
> >
> > But there are evolutionary dead ends. e.g. Dodo birds.
> > So does that mean the predictive ability of ID fails?
> > I'll let Tim answer that.
> >
>
> Why do you presume that an intelligent designer is required
> to produce an *optimal* design? Talk about a leap of faith.
> The assertion that there is design supposes nothing about
> the elegance, parsimony, or beauty of said design, merely
> that there is *intention* in the design rather than purely
> random/chaotic/probablistic mechanisms (and these may also
> exist in a "designed" environment).
>
> Does that answer it for you?

I'm far more interested in what testable hypothesis you find
or propose that can be used to discriminate between ID and
slow mutation and natural selection.

Absent a testable hypothesis, there is no _scientific_
difference between ID and slow mutation and natural selection.

ID would then be a philosophic ocnstruct combining a scientific
theory with somethign else that is not a cientific theory.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> <[email protected]
> >I STILL do not see what this has to do with Geroge Bush Drinking
>
>
> I missed out on all those insults.
>
>
>
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >> >> >> "Bruce Barnett"
> >> >> >>...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
> >> >> >> > But you ignored my earlier point.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
> >> >> > intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
> >> >> > no evolutionary 'dead ends'.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Meaning what? Extinction or an unchanged design? Neither
> >> >> one implies the lack of a creator unless you presume to know
> >> >> his purpose.
> >>
> >> > Meaning that it is an hypotheses that follows from the presumption
> >> > (e.g. law) of an omnipotent intelligent designer. Sort of like
> >> > the prediction, from transmutation theory of Jewish males born
> >> > without foreskins.
> >>
> >>
> >> It would be another wild guess hypothesis then.
>
>
> > Huh? How would it be a wild guess? (And what would be the
> > antecedant guess making this 'another' one?). The hypothesis
> > follows straight from the observation that Jewish males have been
> > circumcized in infancy for thousands of years, surely hundreds
> > of generations.
>
>
> ...by human hands.

Something a bit sharper I should hope. Regardless, forskins should
have grown smaller and disappeared the same way that giraffe necks
got longer, as each generation stretched its further, right?

>
>
> >> We know that gravity
> >> exists and we know some of it's properties well enough to call them
> >> laws but we don't know all there is to know about it, even though
> >> it is testable and observable. I don't see how anyone can presume
> >> any laws about an Intelligent Designer since he would beyond our
> >> scope of observation.
> >
> > Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!
>
>
> ????

You made it clear that you understood the difference between
scientific theory and religious doctrine.

>
> >> > Regardless, if you do not like my choice of hypothesis please suggest
> >> > some of your own. I hope you understand that a theory that does
> >> > not suggest testable hypotheses is not a scientific theory.
>
>
> >> All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
> >> unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
> >> If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
> >> they do so out of faith, not science.
>
>
>
> > Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity
> > of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess.
>
>
> I don't agree.

Well than what DOES separate one scientific theory from another
if not testable hypotheses?

> Neither did Albert Einstein, who after all
> scientific observations concluded that there was a designer.

Splorf!

Nonsense. Einstein NEVER denied that hypothesis testing was
the proper way to distinguish between scientific theories.

Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom
or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated
either for his religious views.

What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference?

>
>
>
> > Not only
> > can one do science with or without considering the possibility,
> > indeed, the scince one does, in either case, will be the same.
>
>
> It should be that way. I didn't suggest otherwise.

Why have a component of a scientific theory, when that component
has no affect on that theory?

>
>
> >> >> >> > We CAN use evolution to predict results.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You can't predict anything with evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
> >> >> > is why some come to be favored over others.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
> >> >> there are competing theories.
> >>
> >>
> >> > That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples
> >> > of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed,
> >> > you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They
> >> > follow a couple of paragraphs below.
> >>
> >>
> >> I answered the assertion.
> >
> > With a repetition of statement I showed to be false.
>
>
> No, you asserted it to be false.

No, you asserted that "you can't predict anything with evolution".

Perhaps incorrectly, I interpretted that to mean "You can't
use any evolutionary theory to make any prediction" and then
went on to point out how one could use specific evolutionary
theories to make predictions, like the vanishg foreskin
prediction of some tranmutational theories, or predictions
as to what may be found in the fossil record.

If that is NOT what you meant, WTF did you mean by "you can't
predict anything with evolution".


>
>
>
> >> > Further, Without competing theories, there could be no progress
> >> > in Science.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't follow that either. How does having multitudes of theories
> >> prove what we are discussing?
> >>
> >
> > You lost me.
>
>
> You brought it up. What does a multitude of theories have to do with
> anything?

I never wrote "multitude of theories". I never said that having
theories proves anything. Now you are just trolling.

>
>
> >> > Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete.
> >> > Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible
> >> > with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even
> >> > observations consistant with tranmutation theory.
>
>
> >> Sure, how about the Cambrian Explosion? Lots of theories, no answers.
>
>
> > Al theories are answers.
>
>
> Only to the faithful.

No, all theories are answers. The faithful choose among them wihout
concern for hypothesis testing.

>
>
> > Take for example, the question, "Why
> > the Cambrian Explosion?" There are lots of answers, maybe
> > some are correct.
>
>
> Such as 'anything but a designer will do' ?

What theory is that?

>
>
> >> That's what I was addressing. The hypothesis or theory of
> >> evolution.
>
>
> > That doesn't make any sense. Hypotheses are suggested by theories.
> > E.g. given a modern horse and a modern cow most evolutionary theories
> > predict that there should have been a species that was a common
> > ancestor of both. One looks to the fossil record to test that
> > hypothesis.
>
>
> Good example. If one sees a different species that has some similarities
> to both and concludes that's the common ancestor, they did so to
> support a prior conclusion.

I would not go so far as to ascribe the motivation but certainly
that person is not doing science because they did not test an
hypothesis.


>
> >> >> > Evolution is a field of study
> >> >> > within biology.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> ... That's
> >> >> >> why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > They should be given a better education about the process of
> >> >> > science.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
> >> >> a very general term.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Yes we have Computer Science, Library Science, Political Science,
> >> > even Christian Science.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Those as fundamentally different uses of the _word_ science as
> >> > compared to the sciences of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and
> >> > so on.
> >>
> >>
> >> True, so science doesn't exclude an Intelligent Designer.
> >>
> >
> > It is silent on the subject. In a similar vein, biology is silent
> > on cosmology.
>
>
> That isn't similar or even relevent. Science includes all possibilities.
> You said many theories are included in scientific hypothesis.

No, I did not say that.

> Many
> are not testable, i.e. parallel universes, bubble universes, etc. yet
> are part of the scientific discussion.

No, you confuse speculation with science.

>
>
>
> >> >> I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
> >> >> unless there are other motives.
> >>
> >>
> >> > If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom
> >> > the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law
> >> > to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe
> >> > in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would
> >> > promote a particular religious doctrine.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which one?
> >
> > Intelligent Design.
>
> That's a religion? Isn't a religion more specific?
>

It is a particular religious doctrine.

>
>
> >> I would assert that to not include one and give the
> >> students the sense that biology started itself, which *is* taught,
> >> is religion.
>
>
> > Here is why your assertion is wrong. Silence may be simple
> > silence, a non-statement. But if silence is to be interpretted,
> > silence implies consent.
>
> > Silence on the issue of God implies consent to whatever belief
> > each student brings to school.
>
> Schools aren't silent on the subject of the creation of life.

The public schools I went to were, dunno about yours.

> Since
> life is testable and its' beginnings are unproven, then according
> to you they are teaching a religion.

I said nothing of the sort. It is clear that you misunderstand
or malinterpret much of what I wrote.

--

FF