“never said anything about religion

In fact most the ID'ers objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?”

“A group of scientists are struggling to climb a very high mountain. They scramble along the route, taking many offshoot trails and bushwacks. Some time later upon finally arriving at the top of the mountain, to their surprise they find a group of theologians sitting comfortably on the summit enjoying the views, upon which one of the theologians says to the scientists, "We've been expecting you."”

“well put”

“Hi M Silver. Good to see you.”

“Thanks for the response, Pitts.

I was being just a touch flip about this in terms of ID in the public schools. I think that it's funny how teachers have to be very, very, VERY qualified to teach most things, but ID supporters seem ready to let a lot of non-evangelicals with no training teach this idea.

BTW, I just finished with the "Native American Creation Story" section of my 11th grade English class. We read creation myths of the Onondaga, Modoc and Navajo peoples. I have and probably will teach a little bit of the Bible as well. So, I kind of think that this is a whole lot of nothing.

And any student or parent who wants to can probably start a creation club for students.

There's really a lot more freedom on this than people realize.”

“My mother-in-law is a non-Christian "Intelligent Design" believer. She thinks we were seeded here intelligently by aliens long ago. Seriously.

M Silver, I like the mountain climbing analogy!”

“Herodotus (484-425 BC) - attributed variation in skull thickness amoungst human to environment causes

Hippocrates (460-377 BC)- gain, variations in physical form attributted to environment

Plato (427-347 BC) - "The Greater Good", an 'intellectual design'

Aristotle (384-322 BC)- Scala Natura...great chain of being


Seems this is an agruement that has been brewing long before Darwin ever entered the scene. Yeah, I'm taking the above info from a lecture in my physical anthropology class...interesting stuff I though.”

“Mutt, sorry, but everything you just said is wrong and has been refuted.

Bwahahaha! Now you're resorting to simply re-directing an empty analog of my legitimate criticism back to me. I'm rubber and you're glue, eh?

Buck, when you reach intellectual and emotional maturity, get back with us. Until then, the adults are having a conversation.”

“Bwahahaha! Now you're resorting to simply re-directing an empty analog of my legitimate criticism back to me.

Ditto.

Buck, when you reach intellectual and emotional maturity, get back with us. Until then, the adults are having a conversation.”

No comment... I refuse to insult people for differing and legitimate views. Okay, I guess I just commented, so I lied. :^D”

“So you respond by doing it again. God you're dumb.”

“Life is like a box of chocolates.”

“I always spit out the coconut ones when I get them. Who ever designed them should be shot”

“there is no such thing as a box of chocolates

;)


...well, at least not if I'm around...it suddenly goes extinct”

“sirpete, Buck: Thanks, but credit for the analogy goes to Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute and author of "God and the Astronomers." He's one of a growing number of scientists (up to about 40% now) who have recognized the limitations of scientific inquiry and see science pointing to an intelligent designer of the universe. The keepers of Pop Science (the kind currently taught in U.S. public schools, willingly supported by the media, and defended tooth and nail in such venues as this) haven't yet realized what's happening ...but hey, those in power never wish to give up their control over the masses. To me, religion and science are not really all that different from each other in many ways. In the meantime, some folks have the mistaken notion that to dispute an issue is to refute it. Someday people will look back on this relatively dark age and marvel at the things humans actually believed in the name of "Science."”

“After reading M Silver's post it made me think of gradeschool when we were taught what science is. I looked up the meaning of the word in the online dictionary and found this familiar definition:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

It occured to me after reading M Silver's post and the definition that the issue here might be one of the ability of scientists. I always thought of science as a means of humans to discover truth.

If you think about it, scientists that are adamant about not looking at God as a possible reason for the universe's creation may be experiencing a lack of ability on their own part as scientists. In other words, maybe they are just incapable of "observing, identifying, experimentally investigating" the possible phenomena of a creator.

What strikes me as odd is that instead of just admitting, "We have no way of testing that, but it might be truth.", they are quick to say "We can never test that so it cannot be truth."

Supposing there is an intelligent designer, those scientists have, by their own stubborness, decided that truth is less important than their own self-importance. "If I do not have the physical or mental ability to prove something, I will not accept it's existence." While, as scientific method is crucial to scientific understanding, scientists for their own survival must never lose the curiosity and the persistence that made them scientists to begin with. If scientists 1,000 years ago had no method of discovering other galaxies (because they had not the mental abilities to create a physical method of viewing them), but had suspected their existence because of philosophical reasoning and other external observations, and had determined that working on creating a tool to view them (telescope) wasn't worth pursuing because of the current inability to use scientific method, where would we be? Where would science be? Where would understanding of facts and reality currently be?

Scientists need to go back to their roots. They need to rediscover what science is all about. As we learn more and more incredible things about our universe, we need to be willing to think "outside the box". Otherwise, instead of seeing the universe for what it is, we will see it for what we make it.”

“good post, mountainpeak. but like i said, those who believe need to pursue it and figure out ways to make it science and not just philosophical lint-gazing. just quit calling it science and recognize what it is right now, musing. big bang and TOE are not 100 percent provable beyond a doubt, just in the high 90's, which is a far sight better than ID.”

“well the good news is as long as you all attach God to it I don't have to teach it in my classroom.”

“sirpete - Do you find limiting the information you pass on to your students to be helpful in their education?”

“Absolutely not, I am a true believe in the scientific method no matter where the results may lead us. Narrowing the scope of our student knowledge doesn't make free thinkers out of them, unfortunately with standards based education, high stakes testing, and the accountability that has come with NCLB (no child left behind) there isn't any time left to teach that which is not assessed, and though science is not currently one of the subjects tested under NCLB (it will be shortly) it is under state assessments.

If you want to learn in depth information about creationism and Intellectual design you will have to go to a parochial school because our government is making sure there is no room for it in public shools.”

“Do you find limiting the information you pass on to your students to be helpful in their education?”

we have no "information" about a higher ceator, only navel-gazing.”

“sirpete - Your post is senseless. In one paragraph you 1) say you are a believer in the scientific method, 2) agree that limiting a student's education will not make free thinkers out of them, 3) blame the government that you have to reach standards. Your first point seems to limit your teaching to the scientific method only, yet you admit that doing so is limiting the growth of their minds.

The bottom line is that you are not prevented from teaching them about intelligent design, but choose to do so, yet blame the government for your problems. YOU are a representative of the government if you teach in a public school. It's obvious from your posts that you do no want to teach them things outside of YOUR scope. The only one limiting your students' education is you.”

“I'm no blaming the governement for what I can and cannot teach. Standards based education is a good thing but the testing that comes from them is very specific in what students need to know.

NCLB expects adequate yearly progress from schools towards these standards so what ends up happening is that the better part of the school year is spent "teaching to the test" and then what is left you can spend on teaching other things.

Heck in Jersey they have a class called summary science, they offer in high school. the textbook that they use is the prep guide to the state test. Now there is an exciting class let me tell ya, each chapter covers the highlights for areas of science like, Ecology, Physic, Chemistry, Biology etc.

So you are absolutely right about teaching what I want.....to a point. Since only knowing that there are other theories besides evolution is important for testing, how much time is spent teaching about those other theories is up to the teacher.

What can I tell you, I am a Darwinist.”

“It's refreshing to see an honest response to a personal challenge on an internet forum sirpete. It took be aback.”

“Someone asked me what book I had read on Intelligent Design. I read a book by William Dembski called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology".

You can find a lot of documents from this author on the Internet. He is supposed to be a thought leader in the field of Intelligent Design. Here is a paper of his I like in particular:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm

Here is a particularly revealing comment he makes:

Through this two-pronged approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

This isn’t science. It’s a marketing campaign designed to “swap out” one solution for another through a process of promotion… a “selling motion”. Arguments against Darwinism are not arguments for Intelligent Design. If Darwinism is to be “unseated” then it will have to be because Intelligent Design proves to be a more useful theory than Darwinism at predicting phenomena that test it as an independent hypothesis. If it has in fact made it's case then please someone tell me what I should read. I admit I have only read this one book.”

“What strikes me as odd is that instead of just admitting, "We have no way of testing that, but it might be truth.", they are quick to say "We can never test that so it cannot be truth."

That's not odd at all if you're familiar with the basics of the philosophy of science. Naturalistic explanations are axiomatic of science. Once you assert the supernatural, reason and logic go out the window, as everything could be ascribed to "goddidit", to oversimplify it.

But, that really doesn't rule out the searcg abd discovery of natural evidence of a "creator", either (ID's fatuous claim of scientific blackballing notwithstanding). And that's the problem with ID, as CB has repeated over and over - no evidence whatsoever. None. Nada. Zilch.”

“Mutt, your claim that there is "none nada zilch" evidence for a creator is simply wrong. You obviously don't know much about this. There are many statistical evidences for a creator.”

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
last edited: 9/12/05 9:10:12 AM”

“There are many statistical evidences for a creator.

No, there's simply no *scientific* evidence. But of course, there is a whole slew of pseudo-scientific wishful thinking out there, so I suppose that's what you're referring to...”

“Mutt, you just made my earlier point. Thank you.”

“Which earlier point?”

“The one you quoted and responded to.”

“Oh. You were saying that "scientists that are adamant about not looking at God as a possible reason for the universe's creation". "God" is not a naturalistic concept; it's supernatural. Like I stated, "God" breaks a fundamental axiom of the philosophy of science. Now, Intelligent Design might indeed have a basis in the natural world (e.g. an advanced alien race seeded life on earth and engineered its evolution). But the fact remains that no facts - direct or inferred - support this idea. That's not to say there never will be, of course, but all the wishful thinking on Buck's (et al) part does not constitute evidence.

I think you're having trouble understanding the boundaries of science and theology. You think that since science axiomatically won't deal with God, then we as intellectually honest people should go ahead and insert it in science classes. After all, that would be fair to both "theories", right?”

“"God" breaks a fundamental axiom of the philosophy of science. (mutt)

In what way? What is the "fundamental axiom" that is broken? What is science?”

“Mutt - You further illustrated my point once again. Thank you.”

“Pitts - methodological & explanatory naturalism.

mountainpeak - If debunking your point "illustrates" it in your mind, then you're welcome.”

“Pitts = ontological naturalism, too.

When you assert the supernatural, "if A then B" will never be established, as supernatural C may explain B. The entire basis of empiricism and logic falls apart.”

“Mutt, which point did you debunk?”

“I think your definition is excessively complex. You are going to have to read this very carefully if you are going to understand what I am saying.

Science is systematic knowledge. It is a collection of beliefs we hold about a subject matter. There is a systematic way science builds up this knowledge, namely the Scientific Method. Furthermore, science is systematic in that it "sorts" knowledge into categories:

1. Core definitions
2. Claims separated into two subcategories:
a) Fundamental laws, principals or axioms
b) Less fundamental laws derived from fundamental laws, principals or axioms.
3. Observations

The fact that science treats knowledge as systematic is important. We hold some types of knowledge to be more fundamental than others, meaning that we can derive less fundamental knowledge from the more fundamental knowledge. So, for example, mathematics is taken as very fundamental while biology, to use an example related to this thread, is less fundamental.

That means that the study of biology, to further this example, is the study of a less fundamental set of knowledge and observations in an attempt to uncover a more fundamental set governing laws, principals or axioms.

An axiom is a fundamental law because it is a statement we make and accept without proof. As such it can not be derived from any other pieces of knowledge (since if it could be it would not be a fundamental law). This is the case with any “law of science” such as Newton’s Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics. These laws reflect core knowledge that science has not yet been able to reduce into more fundamental laws (note that doesn’t mean it won’t happen … read on.)

So let’s think about your statement that God violates one of the fundamental axioms of science and in doing so consider another example: Consciousness (Rene Descarte anyone?) We accept consciousness to exist even though the very process disproving its existence in fact proves its existence!

This is clearly not a matter for science… or is it? The Anthropic Principal, widely accepted as a fundamental principal in Cosmology, says that the Universe is the way that it is in part because we are here to observe it. It’s used by cosmologists studying the Big Bang to eliminate certain solutions to the Einstein Equations to develop a model for the observable Universe we know today.

Trying to dredge up the Big Bang theory discussion? Please no! The point here is that science willingly accepts principals that can not be proven and can not be derived from more fundamental laws whenever and wherever it needs to do so but…

The key here, and this is important, is that if a piece of knowledge is discovered to be less fundamental then it moves from the first category (“fundamental”) to the second (“derived”). That piece of knowledge is then replaced with the new fundamental law that was uncovered.

This process, which again is part of the systematic nature science uses to manage knowledge, has occurred over and over in science. The “ultraviolet catastrophe" and the development of Quantum Theory is a good example. It’s also part of the ongoing process of science, the search for the Grand Unified Theory for example.

Finally I would like to note that there is nothing that says that there aren’t other bodies of knowledge out there that aren’t systematic. Science reflects one body of systematic knowledge, but who is to say that non-systematic bodies of knowledge don’t exist that reflect such things as spiritual matters? I think philosophically this is one of the more interesting questions we have yet to explore.
last edited: 9/12/05 2:58:29 PM”

“we can derive less fundamental knowledge from the more fundamental knowledge.

Oh there are some creationists who would disagree with this!

The point here is that science willingly accepts principals that can not be proven and can not be derived from more fundamental laws whenever and wherever it needs to do so but…

The key here, and this is important, is that if a piece of knowledge is discovered to be less fundamental then it moves from the first category (“fundamental”) to the second (“derived”). That piece of knowledge is then replaced with the new fundamental law that was uncovered.

Okay, that's all well and good - I'm not arguing that the "baseline" so to speak shifts with discovery/observation. But are you saying that supernatural deus ex machina "principles" = discovery?


but who is to say that non-systematic bodies of knowledge don’t exist

Of course they exist. The problem is that Creationists/IDers want their crap to be considered science, when it clearly isn't. They want their crap taught in science classes.”

“Oh there are some creationists who would disagree with this!

Actually I don't think that they would. In fact I think the concept of "irreducible complexity" (a core concept of Intelligent Design) is based on the belief that this process ultimately will yield a set of "irreducible knowledge" that in fact can't be reduced any further and that this represents “core” knowledge… the design.

But to answer my own question: Science is systematic knowledge.”

“Actually I don't think that they would.

Sure they do - citing Popper et al, they assert inductive reasoning doesn't yield true knowledge, just conjecture, in an attempt to invalidate the principles of science.”

“But are you saying that supernatural deus ex machina "principles" = discovery?”

“No, I am clearly not saying that. I am saying that science is nothing more than a collection of systematic knowledge. You can use ANY sort of knowledge if you wish but so called “dues ex machine” knowledge tends to have two consequences:

1. It tends to be an admission of defeat that we will not be able to further break down a theory into something more fundamental. An example of this is Hawking’s work around Cosmology. He doesn’t believe that the events that created the initial state of the Big Bang can not be explained (“theories of causation” that were heavily debated a few weeks ago). He feels that for science not to attempt to explain causation is to admit defeat and hence he ultimately offers the No Boundary Principal as a causation mechanism for the Universe.

2. More often than not a piece of “dues ex machina” knowledge doesn’t actually do anything useful. The Anthropic Principal is often seen as a rude introduction of philosophy into science. Yet it is useful in cosmology to speak to the nature of the Universe we live in as it relates to consciousness. This “antimony of pure reason” (ala Kant) helps eliminate a great many divergent solutions to the Einstein Equations used to model the Big Bang. Can the Anthropic Principal be proven? No, it’s accepted as true because it is useful and because it can not be refuted (as I said, an “antimony of pure reason”.)

So I go back to statements I made earlier. Is it useful knowledge? Are we introducing the information because we aren’t willing to try harder? “Dues ex machine” knowledge is often not useful (it doesn’t resolve problems, only creates new ones) or worse still we are just introducing it because we either refuse or are unable to look deeper.”

“hey mountainpeak, if you and mutt are done with your pissing contest, how about that "statistical evidence" for god?”

“Crash Bang, have you read about a fine-tuned universe? If so, that would answer your question.”

“I want to have someone who believes it explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated by the theory of Evolution.”

“Crash Bang, have you read about a fine-tuned universe? If so, that would answer your question

if so, i wouldnt be asking”

““Dues ex machina” knowledge is often not useful (it doesn’t resolve problems, only creates new ones) or worse still we are just introducing it because we either refuse or are unable to look deeper.

Okay, so we agree. I thought you had a point contrary to what I was saying, but evidently not.”

“Claiming that the Universe is fine-tuned in fact points away from Intelligent Design. The probability that the Universe is naturalistic and contains life must be less than or equal to the probability that it is naturalistic, contains life and is the result of fine-tuning (that is, fine-tuning increases the odds that the Universe is naturalistic). So in fact if you wanted to argue for Intelligent Design you would want to argue against fine-tuning since fine-tuning increases the chances that the Universe is naturalistic.”

“Haha! different name, same ass whoopin', ey Mountian?”