Antony Flew anyone?
Lantog
hate to say it but I don't think biologists have done a great job in
combating ID. There is overwhelming evidence a thousand times over to
essentially prove evolution and demolish ID but no one person seems to
have the expertise in the diverse areas required to do it. I wrote a
query letter and outline for an article along these lines to Natural
History. They're "interested" but I missed the deadline for they're
special issue...but I may get to do it in the future.
If anyone disagrees with my contention I offer Antony Flew as
evidence. Flew is a well regarded philosopher from England who made a
name for himself based on rigorous arguments in favor of atheism and
opposed to religion. In the last year Flew announced, at the age of
81(?), that hes converted to deism. He claims it was the compelling
arguments of the IDers (and the anthropic principle) that converted
him!! Now granted his brain is probably a bit addled, but I'm sure hes
still a very smart guy. Hes also obviously not reading the primary
scientific literature..but still! Where are the simple, concise
refutations to the IDers that any nonscientist should be able to
recite??!!
RodW Lan...@aol.com
Bobby D. Bryant
We get a lot of them here, as a matter of fact.
As for Flew, is there any evidence that he even heard them?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ron O
I'd never heard of Flew before the ID scam. Frankly, anyone that made
a name for himself as a philosopher avocating arguments for atheism
would be pretty far down the list of competent philosophers as far as
I'm concerned. Who would waste their time on that subject? You'd have
to be so far around the bend that you'd practically be a deist or
theist already, so it probably wasn't so much of a stretch for the guy.
His thought process was already so far out of it that all he had to do
is step one step farther to his left and he found himself with the guys
that he was arguing against. The distance was probably far greater if
he would have had to walk back around the circle to reach the same
conclusions. The extremes have really just wrapped their arms so far
around that they are shaking hands with each other.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I'd never heard of Flew before the ID scam. Frankly, anyone that made
Ron O
I'd never heard of Flew before the ID scam. Frankly, anyone that made
Bobby D. Bryant
> If anyone disagrees with my contention I offer Antony Flew as
> evidence. Flew is a well regarded philosopher from England who made
> a name for himself based on rigorous arguments in favor of atheism
> and opposed to religion. In the last year Flew announced, at the age
> of 81(?), that hes converted to deism. He claims it was the
> compelling arguments of the IDers (and the anthropic principle) that
> converted him!! Now granted his brain is probably a bit addled, but
> I'm sure hes still a very smart guy. Hes also obviously not reading
> the primary scientific literature..but still!
If, as commonly reported, he converted to deism on the basis of an
ID argument, I'd be inclined to conclude one or more of:
o He's senile
o He never was the sharp thinker he's commonly reported to be
I was going to add "he didn't do a fact check", but frankly I can't
imagine any misrepresentation of fact that would make ID's arguments
compelling -- let alone evidence for deism.
Cubist
[mucho snippo]
> Where are the simple, concise
> refutations to the IDers that any nonscientist should be able to
> recite??!!
You make the mistake of presuming that ID is a scientific theory
which can best be countered by the scientific tactics of raising issues
of fact and pointing out flawed reasoning. We can recite any number of
"simple, concise refutations", and it will do us every bit as much good
as, oh, pointing out the misrepresentations of the Swift Boat ad did
for John Kerry.
I think it would be much more effective to come up with sound-bites
that make ID look ridiculous -- that is, use the IDers' tactics against
them. Fortunately, the very nature of ID is such that we can do this
*without* needing to commit false witness; all we need to do is throw
ID's ridiculousness into sharp relief. Here are three possibilities, to
gert the ball rolling:
"Wisdom teeth. Yeah, *that's* the work of a *real* Intelligent
Designer!"
"The Designer has a 99.99% failure rate -- how Intelligent can He
*be*, for cryin' out loud?"
"Intelligent Design says that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody
intelligent *did* something. You call *that* 'science'?"
John Burton
Why?
Who would waste their time on that subject? You'd have
> to be so far around the bend that you'd practically be a deist or
> theist already, so it probably wasn't so much of a stretch for the guy.
Advocating atheism is a waste of time? Should we just concede everything
to the theists? I guess I must be "pretty far around the bend".
John
Frank J
> I've been following the whole ID thing for over a decade now and I
> hate to say it but I don't think biologists have done a great job in
> combating ID.
Sadly, I have to agree. They have done an excellent job at combating ID
to most science-literate people, including very religious ones. Heck, I
almost fell for ID (ca. 1997), and I was a mid-career chemist. But with
the general public, ID critics have gotten nowhere. That's because it
is not a battle of competing theories. Not even a solid theory vs. a
radical, yet-unsupported hypothesis (as it was with classic
creationism). This is purely a war of sound bites, and sadly the IDers
are winning - so far at least.
> There is overwhelming evidence a thousand times over to
> essentially prove evolution and demolish ID but no one person seems to
> have the expertise in the diverse areas required to do it. I wrote a
> query letter and outline for an article along these lines to Natural
> History. They're "interested" but I missed the deadline for they're
> special issue...but I may get to do it in the future.
> If anyone disagrees with my contention I offer Antony Flew as
> evidence. Flew is a well regarded philosopher from England who made a
> name for himself based on rigorous arguments in favor of atheism and
> opposed to religion. In the last year Flew announced, at the age of
> 81(?), that hes converted to deism. He claims it was the compelling
> arguments of the IDers (and the anthropic principle) that converted
> him!! Now granted his brain is probably a bit addled, but I'm sure hes
> still a very smart guy. Hes also obviously not reading the primary
> scientific literature..but still! Where are the simple, concise
> refutations to the IDers that any nonscientist should be able to
> recite??!!
> RodW Lan...@aol.com
They are there, but they are scattered about, and mostly "lost" among
the futile arguments against "design in the general sense" (which is
unfalsifiable) and defenses of evolution against countless strawman
arguments.
IDers define terms to suit their argument, bait-and-switch definition
whenever they can, quote out of context, etc. I certainly don't
recommend that we stoop to that level, but we need to expose IDers'
antics before any attempt to refute their pro-design or anti-evolution
claims.
My biggest beef with fellow ID critics of late is that they try to
portray ID as a belief. How is that supposed to impress a ~90%
religious audience, which knows little science, and has been fed all
sorts of misinformation, not only from IDers, but from the media and
pop culture?
IDers who say "I am not a creationist" seem to know that the mutually
contradictory classic creationist accounts are nonsense. But they
mostly cover them up and do a "don't ask, don't tell" about their own
position. With that they often bait critics into suggesting that they
are "closet YECs." Here is one ID critic who even back in 1997
suggested that IDers might be "closet evolutionists":
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
ID must be portrayed not as a belief, but as a strategy of deception.
One that misrepresents both science and God.
OvC
article <dghla2$l34$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ...
See <http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369>, especially the
December 2004 and January 2005 updates.
From the first update, he's quoted as saying
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian
God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic
theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species
... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to
think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of
providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first
reproducing organisms.
In the later update he admits to having been snookered by a physicist:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing
that there were no presentable theories of the development of
inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of
reproduction.
Current status, from the last paragraph:
'Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as
I can tell. But in response to theists citing him in their favor, Flew
strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous
unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the
concept of God might actually be self-refuting...'
--
OvC
Ron O
It isn't giving up it is just the fact that you have to acknowledge
that you can never win. If you can't do that, your reasoning powers
aren't up to snuff. You might as well join Ed Conrad's crusade to
verify his fossils.
People have been arguing this junk for a very long time. Long before
Flew was ever born, and where has it gotten anyone? If you think that
you have something unique to offer put it forward, but don't expect
much interest.
Ron Okimoto
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Somehow, the ID movement is tapping into a very deep rooted need in
many human beings. If you were somehow to wipe out all the main
practicioners of the current ID movement, you would only find other
people who would quickly take their place. Another problem you guys
face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
Or to put it another way, reading the above account, it wasn't more
clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
theist position. In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
design conflicted with evolution.
Why not try the approach of trying to meld evolution with a theistic
approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
gospel taken out of it.
As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief. They cannot
deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
established science. Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
point of view.
Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
get alongside with them. You will make your scientific views more
popular, and you will do Christianity a favor.
But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
- "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
Stephen
Ernest Major
Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> writes
>
>I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
>evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
>it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
>who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
>at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
>come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
>opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
>
You appear to be arguing that God is in error, consequently not
omniscient. If "fundamental christian (sic) types" includes the crop of
creationists that we get here then his putative actions have the
opposite effect. It would make more sense to hypothesise that God sent
"evolutionists" so that Christians would come to realise which "truth"
(e.g. salvation) is the more important compared to less truths (e.g. how
abiogenesis occurred).
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1127026598.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> writes
> >
> >I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> >evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> >it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> >who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> >at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> >come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> >opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
> >
> Nearly chez-watt-worthy.
I have to admit that I don't get this reference.
> You appear to be arguing that God is in error, consequently not
> omniscient.
I'm don't get where you got this from, also.
> If "fundamental christian (sic) types" includes the crop of
> creationists that we get here then his putative actions have the
> opposite effect. It would make more sense to hypothesise that God sent
> "evolutionists" so that Christians would come to realise which "truth"
> (e.g. salvation) is the more important compared to less truths (e.g. how
> abiogenesis occurred).
"Abiogenesis" is a word that I have heard on this group, and as I
recall it means the study of how the whole DNA/RNA/protein thing got
going in the first place. My phrase "how the universe was created" was
meant as a much more general statement.
But this brings me to a mild change of subject. I have only attended
one ID/evolution debate. Now I know a little more about the subject
matter, I really do now wonder why the evolutionist speaker consented
to include abiogenesis in the debate (which was basically the first
thing they talked about). My impression from what I hear in this group
is that current models of how abiogenesis occured are definitely not
"scientific fact" in the same way that evolution is "scientific fact."
And in the eyes of the public, the distinction between these two topics
is by no means clear. That is to say, it seems to me that by including
abiogenesis in the debate that evolutionists effectively weaken their
position in the public eye very much.
Stephen
Cheezits
[etc.]
> I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
Creationists helped make me realize that the real world is more important
to me than their fantasies. I don't think you're going to find many data
points for your hypothesis here, at least among non-Christians. For
Christians, salvation probably ought to be the primary concern. Do they
really think God is going to punish them for accepting some particular
scientific theory?
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position.
I generally don't care much whether people believe in theism or salvation
or whatever, as long as they don't promote pseudoscience.
> In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
[stuff I have no comment on deleted - I'll leave it for theists]
That is using a more broad definition of "intelligent design" from what is
usually meant by the term in current discourse.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
John Harshman
[snip]
> But this brings me to a mild change of subject. I have only attended
> one ID/evolution debate. Now I know a little more about the subject
> matter, I really do now wonder why the evolutionist speaker consented
> to include abiogenesis in the debate (which was basically the first
> thing they talked about). My impression from what I hear in this group
> is that current models of how abiogenesis occured are definitely not
> "scientific fact" in the same way that evolution is "scientific fact."
> And in the eyes of the public, the distinction between these two topics
> is by no means clear. That is to say, it seems to me that by including
> abiogenesis in the debate that evolutionists effectively weaken their
> position in the public eye very much.
You hit on a Catch-22 of a sort. If you avoid abiogenesis, the public
will think you have no defense of it. And since they do, as you say,
conflate the two in their minds (having only a vague ideas of what any
of this is about), that will make them tend to doubt evolution too. You
could try explaining that common descent and origin of life are two
separate topics, but that appears not to be an easy thing to understand.
I say this because nobody on this group has ever been able to convince a
creationist, even the most rational of them, of this simple fact.
"Evolution", to many members of the public, signifies the big bang,
abiogenesis, common descent, a universe caused strictly by natural
processes, and atheism all at once. I don't know how to fix this.
I certainly try, as much as I can, to bring the argument around to a
very simple question: Do humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?
Whenever I do that here, the creationists I'm arguing with bring up all
manner of irrelevancies, including everything I mentioned above. It's
literally impossible to talk just about common descent of humans and
apes with a creationist.
So you have good advice, but it's no solution either. Still, if I were
debating a creationist, I would work very hard to make human/ape common
descent the sole topic. Not only is the evidence particularly strong,
what with the two complete genomes and all, but it's the central
question that creationists can't back down on.
Frank J
I could be wrong, but I don't think that it will be easy to find people
who can spin it as well as Johnson, Dembski and Behe.
> Another problem you guys
> face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
> their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
> distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
> light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
> mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
I'm sure that most of them are genuine in their beliefs in God (as are
many (most?) "evolutionists"). Most chief IDers may be even genuine in
their beliefs that they caught the designer red-handed. And unlike most
ID critics, I take them at they word that they are unsure whether the
designer they caught is God. But after 8 years of reading their
carefully chosen words, I don't think that there is one in the top few
dozen IDers who isn't personally convinced that, design or not, it's
still evolution. And that all of the mutually contradictory creationist
accounts are absolute nonsense. But who misrepresent it anyway.
Now if you mean the "rank and file," then I do think that most honestly
think that it's not evolution, but some "independent abiogenesis"
scenario. But that's because the scammers are careful to avoid
detailing the mutually contradictory alternatives and revealing their
flaws.
>
> I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
Who is "you"? We theists already believe that ultimate truths are more
important. But the old "problems are opportunities" paradox comes to
mind. Perhaps God sent pseudoscientists of all stripes - astrologers,
"UFOlogists," spoon benders, etc. to keep us on our toes.
>
> Or to put it another way, reading the above account, it wasn't more
> clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
> taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
Sadly, many Flew critics were more bothered by the latter. But not me.
My disappointment is that he based his conversion on "god-of-the-gaps"
nonsense. Contrast Flew with Kenneth Miller, who is an "interactive"
theist. One who actually criticized deism in "Finding Darwin's God."
But you won't hear IDers dropping his name at every opportunity.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position.
Agree 100%
> In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
As I said before, don't confuse ID in the general sense with the ID
(god-of-the-gaps. misrepresent evolution, etc.) *strategy*.
>
> Why not try the approach of trying to meld evolution with a theistic
> approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
> that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
> as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
> gospel taken out of it.
Have you read John Haught? He is a Christian theologian who embraces
evolution. I can't vouch for the "gospel" but he does resonate with
Christians.
>
> As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
> position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
> Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
> greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
> are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
> that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
> strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
> some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief. They cannot
> deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
> strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
> established science. Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
> latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
> movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
> point of view.
>
> Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
> get alongside with them. You will make your scientific views more
> popular, and you will do Christianity a favor.
Yes! And same goes for political conservatives (I'm one too - sort of).
Too often criticisms of ID/creationism sound like an excuse to defend
liberal politics. But many of us conservatives do defend evolution and
good science.
Fellow pro-science people: why not take advantage of *all* of your
resources?
Frank J
Not sure if this is what happened in your debate, but
anti-evolutionists often confuse abiogenesis with evolution. They do
this to pretend that weakness in the former means weakness in the
latter. All the "impossibility of abiogenesis" calculations are
meaningless, of course because abiogenesis occurred at least once by
definition.
> My impression from what I hear in this group
> is that current models of how abiogenesis occured are definitely not
> "scientific fact" in the same way that evolution is "scientific fact."
> And in the eyes of the public, the distinction between these two topics
> is by no means clear. That is to say, it seems to me that by including
> abiogenesis in the debate that evolutionists effectively weaken their
> position in the public eye very much.
Actually critics of ID do not exploit the difference nearly enough. In
addition to pointing out the IDer's bait-and-switch (honest ones will
acknowledge the error) the "evolutionist" should admit that there is
yet no theory of abiogenesis, and that (1) evolution does not depend on
it, and (2) it is "evolutionists" who are working on it, while
anti-evolutionists just recycle bogus "impossibility" arguments.
Not confronting abiogenesis risks reinforcing the common false
caricature of evolution, on which IDers/creationists base their
strawman arguments.
>
> Stephen
Ernest Major
>
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <1127026598.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> writes
>> >
>> >I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
>> >evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
>> >it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
>> >who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
>> >at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
>> >come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
>> >opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
>> >
>> Nearly chez-watt-worthy.
>
>I have to admit that I don't get this reference.
It's a creative spelling of "say what". A monthly award (with the names
removed to protect the guilty) is given on talk.origins for post
fragments. Sometimes for wittiness, but more often for
self-contradiction and other defects, such as a Christian implicitly
arguing that God is not omniscient.
>
>> You appear to be arguing that God is in error, consequently not
>> omniscient.
>
>I'm don't get where you got this from, also.
You're proposing the God is pursuing an action which self-evidently does
not have the result that you propose that he wants to result, as
previously stated in the paragraph below.
>
>> If "fundamental christian (sic) types" includes the crop of
>> creationists that we get here then his putative actions have the
>> opposite effect. It would make more sense to hypothesise that God sent
>> "evolutionists" so that Christians would come to realise which "truth"
>> (e.g. salvation) is the more important compared to less truths (e.g. how
>> abiogenesis occurred).
>
>
>"Abiogenesis" is a word that I have heard on this group, and as I
>recall it means the study of how the whole DNA/RNA/protein thing got
>going in the first place. My phrase "how the universe was created" was
>meant as a much more general statement.
Nothing in particular was meant by the introduction of abiogenesis -
this was only "elegant variation" and avoidance of too close parroting
of your text.
catshark
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <1127026598.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> writes
>> >
>> >I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
>> >evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
>> >it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
>> >who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
>> >at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
>> >come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
>> >opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
>> >
>> Nearly chez-watt-worthy.
>
>I have to admit that I don't get this reference.
"Chez Watt is an informal monthly "award" by the denizens of the
talk.origins news group . . . [that] is dedicated to highlighting the
humorous things posted to t.o. (intentionally or not)."
<http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/index.html>
I can see why Ernest might think that a claim that some people refusing to
listen to "lesser" truths might somehow cause others to accept those same
people's "greater" truths is a bit funny . . . though not in the "ha ha"
sense.
>
>> You appear to be arguing that God is in error, consequently not
>> omniscient.
>
>I'm don't get where you got this from, also.
>
>> If "fundamental christian (sic) types" includes the crop of
>> creationists that we get here then his putative actions have the
>> opposite effect. It would make more sense to hypothesise that God sent
>> "evolutionists" so that Christians would come to realise which "truth"
>> (e.g. salvation) is the more important compared to less truths (e.g. how
>> abiogenesis occurred).
>
>
>"Abiogenesis" is a word that I have heard on this group, and as I
>recall it means the study of how the whole DNA/RNA/protein thing got
>going in the first place. My phrase "how the universe was created" was
>meant as a much more general statement.
>
>But this brings me to a mild change of subject. I have only attended
>one ID/evolution debate. Now I know a little more about the subject
>matter, I really do now wonder why the evolutionist speaker consented
>to include abiogenesis in the debate (which was basically the first
>thing they talked about). My impression from what I hear in this group
>is that current models of how abiogenesis occured are definitely not
>"scientific fact" in the same way that evolution is "scientific fact."
>And in the eyes of the public, the distinction between these two topics
>is by no means clear. That is to say, it seems to me that by including
>abiogenesis in the debate that evolutionists effectively weaken their
>position in the public eye very much.
This is the inevitable "damned if you do, damned if you don't" bind that
science defenders are always in (not just in the evolution "debate"). If
you try to correct the misconceptions of the public about what the claims
are, you are cast as evading the "point" but, if you take it on, you are
wasting time that could be better spent on the real issues.
Anyway, whether the science defender in the debate you saw made a tactical
mistake would depend on what was said. After all, ID is dedicated not to
creating a coherent theory or even hypothesis about design in living things
but to picking out any example of what science can't presently explain.
Abiogenesis (which simply means life coming from something other than a
"living" parent) is one of those things science can't presently explain.
It is not *directly* relevant to the evolution of living things but that
hasn't stopped any science deniers in the past.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .
- William A. Dembski -
Googler
>
>
>
> Somehow, the ID movement is tapping into a very deep rooted need in
> many human beings.
I do think that is correct to some extent. However, in and of itself,
that doesn't give the movement any validity. History is full of
'movements' that tapped into emotional needs in a destructive way. It
is even going on today.
I'm not saying that the ID movement is destructive - I don't know. But
if it is an appeal to emotions as you say, it has to be treated as that
and not as a scientific alternative.
<<...>>
> Another problem you guys
> face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
> their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
> distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
> light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
> mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
Alas, history is replete with movements whose adherents were completely
sincere and generally well-educated, and also 100% wrong.
That isn't so much a "problem" as a fact. It means that these concerns
and feelings have to be dealt with as they are and not as they are
thought to be.
If you are implying that the scientific community generally isn't doing
that, I might agree with you.
>
> I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types...
I personally don't see the fruitfulness in someone trying to frame
God's purposes in human terms. If one doesn't believe in God, the quest
will appear to be an absurdity, and if one does believe, the quest is
an impossibility.
>
> Or to put it another way, reading the above account, it wasn't more
> clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
> taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
Based on some of the posts here, I'm sure that some are way more upset
by the second than the first. However, since such concerns have
absolutely nothing to do with 'doing science', it is a perversion to
bring them up in a scientific context.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position.
To the extent that this is the view of some in the scientific
community, that particular persuasion is a perversion of science.
Science, as both a method and a body of accepted knowledge, is not
concerned with such matters.
Which is *NOT* to say that scientific knowledge is disconnected from
other knowledge, only that it is arrived at in its own way.
> In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
>
> Why not try the approach of trying to meld evolution with a theistic
> approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
> that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
> as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
> gospel taken out of it.
I must strongly disagree with you. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Gerd
Theissen, John Polkinghorne, John Haught, and many others past and
present have contributed to a rich Christian theology that encompasses
evolution and modern science in general. Perhaps those views are not
much in style in t.o., but I would not regard the style of t.o as
particularly meaningful in this context.
>
> As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
> position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
> Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
> greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
> are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
> that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
> strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
> some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief.
Welcome - better late than never.
> They cannot
> deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
> strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
> established science. Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
> latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
> movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
> point of view.
>
> Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
> get alongside with them. You will make your scientific views more
> popular, and you will do Christianity a favor.
>
IME, it isn't the evangelical aspect that is any sort of impediment.
However, fundamentalism is very much an impediment. And it doesn't
only arise from *Christian* fundamentalism. It can arise from any
fundamentalism, whether religious or NON-RELIGIOUS.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Thanks for your message. I have only been getting into this
evolution/creationist issue for about a year, and so I don't have the
kind of hard won experience that you seem to have. Most likely, when I
get into more actual debates with people, I will face the same kinds of
disappointing reactions that seem to be the common experience of this
group.
Anyway, I think I'm going to have to step back from this group once
more. Truly, I haven't even yet sorted out all the issues in my head
yet, and so since I'm not too sure what my position is, I don't think
that I am in a very good place to convince anyone else.
Nevertheless, I really do have this sense that if this evolution/theist
debate could be framed in just the right way, that it really could have
an explosively good effect on society, both for theists, and for
scientists. I have a sense that the time is ripe for such a
reconciliation. I get this sense that society is moving in a
post-modernist direction. In a way that could be considered bad news
for scientists, but then again maybe not, because they will be forced
to defend their "scientific method" to an audience who don't accept it
a priori. But this post-modernist move is also going to be good for
Christianity because people are going to have to examine their
super-literalist positions, and try to figure out what it really is
that God is saying.
Ultimately people have this deep inner sense that they are seeking for
some notion of "truth", even if they are unable to properly articulate
what this elusive truth really is. A purely scientific approach fails
in this regard, but so also does a super-literal interpretation of
scripture. In short, modernism has failed them.
Stephen
Elf M. Sternberg
> If, as commonly reported, he converted to deism on the basis of an
> ID argument, I'd be inclined to conclude one or more of:
> o He's senile
He is not. I've heard interviews with him recently, and he
seems to be quite all there, even at 81.
> o He never was the sharp thinker he's commonly reported to be
He coined the term "No true scotsman" and his book on logical
fallacies and how to recognize them is still one of the best.
> I was going to add "he didn't do a fact check", but frankly I can't
> imagine any misrepresentation of fact that would make ID's arguments
> compelling -- let alone evidence for deism.
You *should* add "he didn't do a fact check," because that's
more or less what went wrong. Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist.
He relies on scientists not to lie to him. One did:
I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder... It was precisely because
he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not)
that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics."
- Antony Flew, January 2005, Letter to Richard Carrier
Note that Flew's acceptance of "an ID argument" was the
fine-tuning argument; Schroeder apparently led him to believe that there
were no viable contenders aside from the "deliberately fine-tuned"
anthropic argument.
Although Flew has since admitted that all the evidence that he
amassed in favor of deism has since been shown to be wanting, he has not
recanted his deism. Although Flew is still quite rational, I think we
are seeing the comforts of an aging man.
Flew is still just a deist. I don't find deists bothersome.
His opinion on Christianity is still one I can admire:
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I
reject the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of
evil creature who would create such a thing.
- Antony Flew, BBC Interview, April 5, 2005.
Elf
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
It would seem to me (but I admit that I have never seen it tried so I
could be completely wrong) that the best tactical approach with respect
to abiogenesis is to simply state "we don't have this one figured out -
we have some plausible sounding theories, but for all we know your idea
that God created it spontaneously is as valid as any of our ideas."
This way, you can do several things:
1. You get the debate back to issues where you are on strong ground;
2. You can also try to re-appropriate the term "intelligent design" so
that it once again means what it really means;
3. It deflates their conspiracy theories that you guys are pig headed,
and have already made up your minds before you looked at the evidence.
4. People just love this kind of humilty. For example, it really did
President Kennedy's polls a world of good when he actually came out
after the Bay of Pigs disaster and said it was all his fault. The same
thing with Janet Reno after the Waco disaster.
While I am here, let me talk about another subject. I have often heard
many of you say that you just don't have the debating skills that the
I.D. advocates have, and that you prefer just to get on with science.
But most scientists I know don't spend their time doing science, they
spend most of their time writing grant proposals. Writing grants is an
art just as much as any kind of communication with the public - you ask
yourselves questions like "what is it that the reviewer is looking for
in a grant" or you try to anticipate their questions - in short, you
try to get into their shoes and see it from their (the public's)
perspective.
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> Note that Flew's acceptance of "an ID argument" was the
> fine-tuning argument; Schroeder apparently led him to believe that there
> were no viable contenders aside from the "deliberately fine-tuned"
> anthropic argument.
The only other argument I have heard is the "many universes" theory.
Recently it occured to me that the "many universes" theory is just a
philosophical rationalisation for conditional probability - i.e. "given
that we do exist as we do, how must the universe be/have been." The
"many universes" theory comes across as crass speculation, whereas the
equivalent "conditional probability" approach seems like something that
could easily be (or has been) axiomatised.
> Although Flew has since admitted that all the evidence that he
> amassed in favor of deism has since been shown to be wanting, he has not
> recanted his deism. Although Flew is still quite rational, I think we
> are seeing the comforts of an aging man.
My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give in.
I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
when it was offered to him.
But
> Flew is still just a deist.
whatever notion of God he has obtained thus far, is not going to
qualify him for Christian salvation. So in this manner, it could be
argued that I.D. has failed in its (apparent) ulterior purpose.
Stephen
Richard Clayton
> My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
> Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give in.
> I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
> rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
> when it was offered to him.
Do you find it acceptable that lies were used to "bring him to the fold"?
(I hope you say "no," because I like and respect you, and that will be
eroded if you answer "yes.")
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Jeffrey Turner
>
> But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
> - "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
You mean creationists need a hard kick in the gonads?
--Jeff
--
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802
Bobby D. Bryant
> My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
> Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give
> in. I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
> rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
> when it was offered to him.
So, what happens when people turn to other religions? Does the Holy
Spirit lead different people to different religions? Does each
religion have it's own Spirit to lead people there?
Or -- shocking suggestion -- are conversions and deconversions simple
matters of psychology and sociology, with no hidden powers participating
at all?
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Richard Clayton wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
> > Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give in.
> > I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
> > rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
> > when it was offered to him.
>
> Do you find it acceptable that lies were used to "bring him to the fold"?
> (I hope you say "no," because I like and respect you, and that will be
> eroded if you answer "yes.")
What am I to do - you have me over a barrel :-)
Seriously, I don't have a problem that he was brought "into the fold"
via lies (although technically speaking he is not in "the fold" just
yet). It is for the same reason that I find it acceptable that
Columbus was deceived into discovering America because he thought that
crossing the Atlantic would be a quick route to China and India.
On the other hand (and I am guessing that this is what you are really
asking), this doesn't excuse the person who told the lies from his
personal moral responsibility. In other words, that God might use our
badly motivated acts to make good things happen does not excuse us from
the bad motivations. As it says in Romans 9:19
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who
resists his will?"
Also the story of Joseph in Genesis who was sold into slavery by his
brothers is a classic example.
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> > But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
> > - "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
>
> You mean creationists need a hard kick in the gonads?
That would be most impolitic and would get you in a heap of trouble.
> "Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely
> between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
> his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
> government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
> with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
> which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
> Church and State."
>
> - Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802
This is the letter in which President Thomas Jefferson refused to help
out the Danbury Baptists who wished for him to intervene against the
State of Connecticut's local establishment of a non-baptist religion.
As such, hasn't this letter been taken terribly out of context?
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
It could be. Maybe there is some evolutionary need for humans to
accept some kind of religion in order to live and reproduce better. It
certainly seems to make a lot of them happier.
But if that is the case, why do some atheists try to disuade theists
who are simply following their natural instincts given to them by
evolution?
And more then that, why do evolutionists get genuinely angry with the
Kansas school boards, who again are simply following their instincts
for survival?
I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
Stephen
The Last Conformist
> > I was going to add "he didn't do a fact check", but frankly I can't
> > imagine any misrepresentation of fact that would make ID's arguments
> > compelling -- let alone evidence for deism.
>
> You *should* add "he didn't do a fact check," because that's
> more or less what went wrong. Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist.
> He relies on scientists not to lie to him. One did:
>
> I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder... It was precisely because
> he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not)
> that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics."
> - Antony Flew, January 2005, Letter to Richard Carrier
>
> Note that Flew's acceptance of "an ID argument" was the
> fine-tuning argument; Schroeder apparently led him to believe that there
> were no viable contenders aside from the "deliberately fine-tuned"
> anthropic argument.
Seems to me he should also done a reality check - he can't very well be
unaware that many physicists are atheists, and ought have asked himself
why they didn't find Schroeder's argument convincing. This should have
impelled him to ask for their reasons.
Bobby D. Bryant
Evildoers do God's work, and then get sent to Hell for it anyway?
Or don't get sent to Hell, because it was God's work?
Doesn't that make you sqeamish on theological grounds, either way?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
>> > Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give
>> > in. I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
>> > rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
>> > when it was offered to him.
>>
>> So, what happens when people turn to other religions? Does the Holy
>> Spirit lead different people to different religions? Does each
>> religion have it's own Spirit to lead people there?
>>
>> Or -- shocking suggestion -- are conversions and deconversions simple
>> matters of psychology and sociology, with no hidden powers participating
>> at all?
>
> It could be. Maybe there is some evolutionary need for humans to
> accept some kind of religion in order to live and reproduce better.
> It certainly seems to make a lot of them happier.
I would think it almost certain that evolution has provided (or
burdened) us with a need to fit into some sort of in-group, and that
religion is one way of satisfying that need. Especially religions
that have a semi-formal association of participants on a regular
basis. (Indeed, I suspect a "survival of the fittest" is at work,
propagating the religions that have procedures that reinforce the
in-group participation over those that don't.)
> But if that is the case, why do some atheists try to disuade theists
> who are simply following their natural instincts given to them by
> evolution?
I suppose you would have to take that up with atheists who actually
do that.
> And more then that, why do evolutionists get genuinely angry with the
> Kansas school boards, who again are simply following their instincts
> for survival?
Dishonesty, and using "the secular arm" to pollute innocent children's
minds with myths that are clearly falsified by readily available
evidence.
Oh, also it's illegal in the USA.
> I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
> morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
Well, I suspect that most atheists have morals and don't think they
are derived from a higher authority.
Do you really have to appeal to a deity to think attempts by the state
to brainwash children with known falsehoods is morally objectionable?
Craig Pennington
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>> Note that Flew's acceptance of "an ID argument" was the
>> fine-tuning argument; Schroeder apparently led him to believe that there
>> were no viable contenders aside from the "deliberately fine-tuned"
>> anthropic argument.
> The only other argument I have heard is the "many universes" theory.
Except that the "fine tuning" argument ujustifiably asserts
knowledge where we are ignorant. Specifically, it asserts that the
universal constants as we observe them are unlikely. What is the
likelyhood of the gravitational constant being greater than or less
than its given value by X for all possible X. Show your work. *This* is
the fundamental flaw in the "fine tuning" argument. It requires that
unjustified assumption; thus it fails regardless of the existence of
many universes or merely the one in which we find ourselves.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> Evildoers do God's work, and then get sent to Hell for it anyway?
It seems a rather obvious conclusion from huge parts of the Bible.
> Doesn't that make you sqeamish on theological grounds, either way?
No. Should it?
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
> > morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
>
> Well, I suspect that most atheists have morals and don't think they
> are derived from a higher authority.
>
> Do you really have to appeal to a deity to think attempts by the state
> to brainwash children with known falsehoods is morally objectionable?
Well, somehow you are trying to appeal to me that what these people are
doing is morally objectionable. It is obvious to you, but on what
grounds can you make that appeal to me? You can only assume that we
both have some universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
Presumably this universal sense came from some evolutionary process by
which this leads to higher survival reproduction rates.
But what if I happen not to have this universal sense within me?
Surely this merely indicates that I differ from the usual person in my
genetic make-up (or perhaps in my upbringing - the means by which this
difference took place is unimportant). In essence, it could be argued
from within this paradigm that it is not that I am evil, it is merely
that I am morally disabled, no more capable of seeing your sense of
right and wrong than someone with a broken spinal chord is capable of
moving his/her legs.
Now if your moral outrage is merely your natural body functions working
normally, according to the evolutionary process which produced you, I
can understand that. But intellectually, how can you judge other
people whose sense of moral outrage might be naturally triggered by
completely different events?
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Craig Pennington wrote:
> Quoth Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu>:
> > Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> >> Note that Flew's acceptance of "an ID argument" was the
> >> fine-tuning argument; Schroeder apparently led him to believe that there
> >> were no viable contenders aside from the "deliberately fine-tuned"
> >> anthropic argument.
>
> > The only other argument I have heard is the "many universes" theory.
>
> Except that the "fine tuning" argument ujustifiably asserts
> knowledge where we are ignorant. Specifically, it asserts that the
> universal constants as we observe them are unlikely. What is the
> likelyhood of the gravitational constant being greater than or less
> than its given value by X for all possible X. Show your work. *This* is
> the fundamental flaw in the "fine tuning" argument. It requires that
> unjustified assumption; thus it fails regardless of the existence of
> many universes or merely the one in which we find ourselves.
This makes perfect sense to me. More or less, you are saying that any
discussion of why the universal constants are what they are is within
the "we don't know what we are talking about" category.
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> Oh, also it's illegal in the USA.
As it says in "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce:
LAWFUL, adj.
Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
Richard Clayton
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>>Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>
>>>My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
>>>Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give in.
>>>I would content that Flew was merely looking for an excuse to
>>>rationalise his desire to believe in a God, and jumped at the chance
>>>when it was offered to him.
>>
>> Do you find it acceptable that lies were used to "bring him to the fold"?
>> (I hope you say "no," because I like and respect you, and that will be
>>eroded if you answer "yes.")
>
>
> What am I to do - you have me over a barrel :-)
>
> Seriously, I don't have a problem that he was brought "into the fold"
> via lies (although technically speaking he is not in "the fold" just
> yet). It is for the same reason that I find it acceptable that
> Columbus was deceived into discovering America because he thought that
> crossing the Atlantic would be a quick route to China and India.
>
> On the other hand (and I am guessing that this is what you are really
> asking), this doesn't excuse the person who told the lies from his
> personal moral responsibility. In other words, that God might use our
> badly motivated acts to make good things happen does not excuse us from
> the bad motivations. As it says in Romans 9:19
Yes, that was the question I was really asking. I am glad you do not
condone lies and deception in the name of God; antinomianism is perhaps
the most dangerous religious doctrine in history.
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who
> resists his will?"
>
> Also the story of Joseph in Genesis who was sold into slavery by his
> brothers is a classic example.
Richard Clayton
Instinct is no excuse for misbehavior, and recognition of biological
drives is not blanket permission to exercise those drives. One can be
held accountable for one's actions in direct proportion to one's
awareness of the world and self.
> I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
> morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
Morality is not unique to Christian societies, or even to theistic
societies. It's worth pointing out that we are social animals, and
societies rise and fall as a whole; societies that promote behavior
destructive to the group tend not to last long.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Richard Clayton wrote:
> > And more then that, why do evolutionists get genuinely angry with the
> > Kansas school boards, who again are simply following their instincts
> > for survival?
>
> Instinct is no excuse for misbehavior, and recognition of biological
> drives is not blanket permission to exercise those drives. One can be
> held accountable for one's actions in direct proportion to one's
> awareness of the world and self.
>
> > I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
> > morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
>
> Morality is not unique to Christian societies, or even to theistic
> societies. It's worth pointing out that we are social animals, and
> societies rise and fall as a whole; societies that promote behavior
> destructive to the group tend not to last long.
Please don't think I am disagreeing with you, indeed completely the
opposite. It is just that, starting with the secular world view, I do
not see how to *rationally* arrive at these conclusions.
Stephen
Craig Pennington
[snip]
> This makes perfect sense to me. More or less, you are saying that any
> discussion of why the universal constants are what they are is within
> the "we don't know what we are talking about" category.
Yep. The "many universes" response to the "fine tuning" argument is a
similar objection; though it grants the "unlikely" assumption. It is a
way of saying that we don't know the sample size (even if we did know
the relative probability.) The "we don't know what we are talking about"
category is exactly where we are with the "fine tuning" argument. That
doesn't mean it's not an interesting question, though. And speculate
is what we do -- and maybe this speculation will lead us a step closer
to an answer. Or not.
Richard Clayton
I am not clear on what you mean by "rationally." If you mean
"scientifically," you are out of luck; science is completely amoral.
That is not the same as being IMmoral-- science is not evil, or opposed
to morals, it just has nothing to say about them one way or another.
Morals and ethics belong to philosophy, which is not the same thing.
lizzard woman
"Richard Clayton" <rZIGecl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KWnXe.5548$fb6.4960@trnddc08...
Similarly, can anyone rationally explain why university psychology
departments are sometimes found in the division of science/math (as opposed
to arts/humanities or social sciences)??
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
catshark
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
That will still be the case when science does have a credible (even a
tested) theory. Science will never be able to reach out of its sphere to
disprove the claim that God did it. Conversely, religion can never reach
into science and become a valid scientific idea.
>This way, you can do several things:
>
>1. You get the debate back to issues where you are on strong ground;
>2. You can also try to re-appropriate the term "intelligent design" so
>that it once again means what it really means;
I don't remember that phrase being particularly important to science before
it was appropriated by those seeking to evade the law.
>3. It deflates their conspiracy theories that you guys are pig headed,
>and have already made up your minds before you looked at the evidence.
>4. People just love this kind of humilty. For example, it really did
>President Kennedy's polls a world of good when he actually came out
>after the Bay of Pigs disaster and said it was all his fault. The same
>thing with Janet Reno after the Waco disaster.
That last example wasn't how I remember it going but never mind. Again, I
don't know what the person you saw actually said so I don't know s/he
didn't do a variation of this.
>
>While I am here, let me talk about another subject. I have often heard
>many of you say that you just don't have the debating skills that the
>I.D. advocates have, and that you prefer just to get on with science.
Not me. ;-)
>But most scientists I know don't spend their time doing science, they
>spend most of their time writing grant proposals. Writing grants is an
>art just as much as any kind of communication with the public - you ask
>yourselves questions like "what is it that the reviewer is looking for
>in a grant" or you try to anticipate their questions - in short, you
>try to get into their shoes and see it from their (the public's)
>perspective.
There is considerable difference between a written debate (or grant
proposal) and a live debate. Also, creationists like to display their
ignorance across a wide spectrum of disciplines. That means that no
scientist will be expert in all the issues they try to raise and learning
even the basics of all those various fields is a huge investment of time.
That is why this place is so hard on creationists. There is always someone
hanging around here who knows (or at least thinks they know ;-)) the right
answer.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Do you think everyone should have a blog?
Here is the counter-evidence: <http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>
catshark
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
Not since the 14th Amendment.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Didn't this come about 60 years after Jefferson wrote this letter? (I
mean, I do see how the 14th ammendment is broadly relevent to the
debate, but I don't see how it answers my particular point, unless
Jefferson had some particular prescience of which I am unaware.)
> LAWYER, n.
> One skilled in circumvention of the law.
>
> - Ambrose Bierce -
I much prefer another of his definitions:
LAWFUL, adj.
Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
It seems strangely relevant to the current judicial decisions over how
the non-establishment clause should be interpreted.
Stephen
catshark
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
No, Jefferson was just expressing what he thought the Constitution
prohibited the Federal government from doing (his Republicanism is what
kept him from trying to interfere with what Connecticut was doing or not
doing). Once the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to
state governments (insert your quibble *here*, if anywhere) then his
interpretation of what the Federal government was forbidden to do becomes
persuasive as to the states as well.
>
>> LAWYER, n.
>> One skilled in circumvention of the law.
>>
>> - Ambrose Bierce -
>
>I much prefer another of his definitions:
>
>LAWFUL, adj.
> Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
>
>It seems strangely relevant to the current judicial decisions over how
>the non-establishment clause should be interpreted.
<Shrug> That's what every gored ox owner says. Wait until you are in the
position of those Danbury Baptists and we'll see how you feel.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other.
-- Mark Twain --
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
>> > I mean, I can understand disagreeing with them, but to hold them
>> > morally culpable seems to require some kind of a higher authority.
>>
>> Well, I suspect that most atheists have morals and don't think they
>> are derived from a higher authority.
>>
>> Do you really have to appeal to a deity to think attempts by the state
>> to brainwash children with known falsehoods is morally objectionable?
>
> Well, somehow you are trying to appeal to me that what these people are
> doing is morally objectionable. It is obvious to you, but on what
> grounds can you make that appeal to me? You can only assume that we
> both have some universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
> Presumably this universal sense came from some evolutionary process by
> which this leads to higher survival reproduction rates.
>
> But what if I happen not to have this universal sense within me?
Then societies take steps to protect the rest of society from your
pathological behavior. This includes imprisoning those who commit
crimes, or threatening those who misbehave with eternal damnation,
to name two examples.
> Surely this merely indicates that I differ from the usual person in my
> genetic make-up (or perhaps in my upbringing - the means by which this
> difference took place is unimportant). In essence, it could be argued
> from within this paradigm that it is not that I am evil, it is merely
> that I am morally disabled, no more capable of seeing your sense of
> right and wrong than someone with a broken spinal chord is capable of
> moving his/her legs.
It doesn't matter why you are that way, in any practical sense.
> Now if your moral outrage is merely your natural body functions working
> normally, according to the evolutionary process which produced you, I
> can understand that. But intellectually, how can you judge other
> people whose sense of moral outrage might be naturally triggered by
> completely different events?
By the same way anyone else does, by their own personal indignation.
It doesn't need to be derived from God to be meaningful.
Mark
> Stephen
Sverker Johansson
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
[snip]
> Somehow, the ID movement is tapping into a very deep rooted need in
> many human beings. If you were somehow to wipe out all the main
> practicioners of the current ID movement, you would only find other
> people who would quickly take their place. Another problem you guys
> face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
> their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
> distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
> light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
> mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
Many are sincere, yes -- but the guys who actually come up with
the fake arguments and doctored quotes? Hardly.
> I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
Are you saying that your god is _purposefully_ demonstrating that his
most vocal followers are ineducable morons. He sends people who
are blatantly and willfully wrong about stuff that can be checked.
Could you please clarify how this is supposed to convince me
to trust them on issues that cannot be checked?
> Or to put it another way, reading the above account, it wasn't more
> clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
> taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position. In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
That's part of the problem with ID, that it's so conveniently fluid.
Some versions, like yours, are largely unobjectionable -- but this
also makes ID eminently abusable for bait-and-switch purposes.
> Why not try the approach of trying to meld evolution with a theistic
> approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
> that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
> as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
> gospel taken out of it.
>
> As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
> position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
> Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
> greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
> are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
> that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
> strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
> some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief. They cannot
> deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
> strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
> established science. Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
> latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
> movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
> point of view.
>
> Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
> get alongside with them.
You mean the same evangelical christian types who tell me I'm gonna
burn in Hell because I don't believe exactly like they do?
An alliance has to be a two-way street.
> You will make your scientific views more
> popular,
You complained above about neutering christianity.
Limiting science so evangelicals find it unobjectionable
amounts to neutering science.
> and you will do Christianity a favor.
Why would I want to?
> But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
> - "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
Craig Pennington
> ... It is a
> way of saying that we don't know the sample size (even if we did know
> the relative probability.)
Doh! I mean "we don't know the size of the population." We have a sample
size of one.
I wouldn't have bothered with this correction, but I see you are
posting from a math department.
Craig Pennington
>>Didn't this come about 60 years after Jefferson wrote this letter? (I
>>mean, I do see how the 14th ammendment is broadly relevent to the
>>debate, but I don't see how it answers my particular point, unless
>>Jefferson had some particular prescience of which I am unaware.)
> No, Jefferson was just expressing what he thought the Constitution
> prohibited the Federal government from doing (his Republicanism is what
> kept him from trying to interfere with what Connecticut was doing or not
> doing). Once the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to
> state governments (insert your quibble *here*, if anywhere) then his
> interpretation of what the Federal government was forbidden to do becomes
> persuasive as to the states as well.
An interesting read on this subject is Thomas's opinion in the Newdow
pledge case. He says essentially that *if* we take the Establishment
Clause's intent to be the protection of the individual right of
conscience, then the legislative insertion of "under God" into the
pledge would be unconstitutional -- but no, he asserts that the
*exclusive* intent of the Establishment Clause is to protect the State's
(some of whom, like CT, had established churches) from disestablishment
by the federal government. This is exactly counter to Jefferson's
opinion as expressed in his letter; and Thomas even tells us to ignore
Madison's opinions on the individual rights of conscience; that he
didn't mean that here. See:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf
Thomas's opinion begins on page 47 of the PDF.
Bobby D. Bryant
> I wouldn't have bothered with this correction, but I see you are
> posting from a math department.
LoL.
catshark
wrote:
Maybe when my blood pressure meds kick in.
Ignore Madison, eh? Well, that's one way to drop the "original intent"
crap.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
For every complex problem,
there is a simple,
easy to understand,
incorrect answer.
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi -
Craig Pennington
>>An interesting read on this subject is Thomas's opinion in the Newdow
>>pledge case. He says essentially that *if* we take the Establishment
>>Clause's intent to be the protection of the individual right of
>>conscience, then the legislative insertion of "under God" into the
>>pledge would be unconstitutional -- but no, he asserts that the
>>*exclusive* intent of the Establishment Clause is to protect the State's
>>(some of whom, like CT, had established churches) from disestablishment
>>by the federal government. This is exactly counter to Jefferson's
>>opinion as expressed in his letter; and Thomas even tells us to ignore
>>Madison's opinions on the individual rights of conscience; that he
>>didn't mean that here. See:
>>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf
>>Thomas's opinion begins on page 47 of the PDF.
> Maybe when my blood pressure meds kick in.
I've heard from reliable sources that he gets even more extreme in
his '10 Commandment' opinions. I haven't yet read those.
> Ignore Madison, eh? Well, that's one way to drop the "original intent"
> crap.
Yep. His claim is that while Madison included the Establishment Clause
in the same amendment with five other enumerated individual rights,
that it was intended to be *exclusively* a states right and not an
individual right and therefore does not apply to the states via the
14th Amendment even though the others do. He offers exactly zero
historical justification for his *interpretation*. Compare this to
his Hamdi opinion, where he appeals to Hamilton's authority for his
claim that the actions of a President and his administration are exempt
from judicial review during a time of war.
What I find chilling is that quite a few people see a strong similarity
between John Roberts's and Clarence Thomas's responses to questions of
individual liberty and the Federal Governments role in protecting it
from intrusive state and local government infringement.
http://supremecourtwatch.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/16/101232/738
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19500
Hope your blood pressure medication kicks in soon.
David Jensen
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<feoui1labact2fq7b...@4ax.com>:
Story from Isaac Asimov's _Opus 100_, vaguely recollected:
Asimov sat in on an English class where one of his books was being
discussed by professor, Asimov eventually objects that the professor's
interpretation wasn't right at all.
"What do you know, you're only the author," was the professor's
rejoinder.
Apparently Thomas also knows more about the original intent than those
who actually wrote the document.
By the way folks, Constitution Day is September 17 and starting this
year every college that receives federal funding (including student aid)
is required by law to have a Constitution Day event.
I'm so glad that Republicans don't meddle.
I wonder if they actually expect an informed citizenry to be more
willing to support their assaults on civil liberties and human rights.
David Jensen
Craig Pennington <cpen...@milo.org> wrote in
<ccVXe.10942$%i1.10416@trnddc09>:
I think that this could be correct in some sense. After all, the Federal
government wasn't really designed to have much impact on citizens, it
was just supposed to be the face to the world and co-ordinater of the
rights and duties of states. What he misses is that we have been turning
our federal government into a much more national government for a long
time and that the Civil War Amendments were a nationalization of rights.
He also misses the arguments of the opponents of the Bill of Rights,
sadly proven true too often over the years, that enumerating the rights
of citizens to be protected against abuses by their government will
allow the government to grab everything not nailed down.
Craig Pennington
[snip]
> By the way folks, Constitution Day is September 17 and starting this
> year every college that receives federal funding (including student aid)
> is required by law to have a Constitution Day event.
The Washington Post ran a quiz for Constitution Day. One of the
questions was something like "Is burning the American Flag a protected
right?" with "Yes" indicated as the correct answer. Which is wrong.
The protected right is speech. A law which is content neutral, such
as a law against open air fires, could punish people who were burning
an American Flag. I suspect that a law against burning any flag as a
means of protest could pass constitutional muster, since it might be
interpreted as a content neutral restriction on the manner of protest
which would not unduly stifle speech. But such a solution wouldn't
win any elections for anyone, so we'll never see it.
Bobby D. Bryant
> By the way folks, Constitution Day is September 17 and starting this
> year every college that receives federal funding (including student
> aid) is required by law to have a Constitution Day event.
Will an anti-war protest suffice?
David Jensen
bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
<dgpcp3$fb9$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>:
Never hurts.
slothrop
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> Somehow, the ID movement is tapping into a very deep rooted need in
> many human beings. If you were somehow to wipe out all the main
> practicioners of the current ID movement, you would only find other
> people who would quickly take their place. Another problem you guys
> face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
> their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
> distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
> light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
> mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
>
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
>
> clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
> taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position. In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
>
> approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
> that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
> as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
> gospel taken out of it.
>
> As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
> position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
> Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
> greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
> are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
> that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
> strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
> some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief. They cannot
> deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
> strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
> established science.
And I know I'm just a lurker and no-one's paying attention here, but
the above statement is why the "war" of ID is being lost. "Personal
experience" is considered off-limits to science. "Subjectivity" in
general is considered off-limits to science. And it's the
"subjectively" felt experiences of believers that are their number one
reason for believing what they believe.
Why????? Just because something is perceived doesn't make it
necessarily off-limits to science. Experiences can be re-created once
the mechanisms are understood. Every Christians' ridiculous asssertions
that they have been in "touch" with God can be re-created once the
underlying mechanisms are understood.
I give as example an area of "subjectivity" that is well-mapped
out--visual perceptions. There are optical illusions dealing with
color-coding that make use of the knowledge we have of how the brain
creates color perceptions. The person sees something that is not there,
there is no relevant image on the retina or even the optic nerve, but
there are parts of the visual cortex (not an exact spot, by the way,
which makes things interesting) that serve in creating a "subjective"
experience of something that isn't what the perceiver thinks it is.
The exact same thing goes for more abstract modes of perception,
notably modes of perception that deal with the "self". We are very
early in the game when it comes to mapping the sources of "subjective
feelings" such as those simplistically attributed to metaphysical
concepts like God and the Holy Spirit. But there are simple (or maybe
not so simple for some) ways one can go about even today to achieve
"experiences" that rival and far surpass those claimed by most
mainstream "religious" people.
You can even achieve some of these results (which ultimately come down
to altering the sense of "self" that the brain creates to function on a
day to day basis) in a crude way by imbibing substances which mess with
the "normal everyday" self--alcohol, pot, LSD (though of course as
these are pretty crude and don't do a lot that's constructive, you can
just take user's word for it)...
There was a discussion in another thread where Stephen was talking to
someone who had prayed and not gotten any responses. Christians are at
a loss to reasonably answer these claims except to say either a.) the
prayer was not sincere, or b.) God wasn't answering yet.
A better explanation of this is that there was nothing about God about
it, the person who had the "experience" had developed a method whereby
they could get themselves into such a state (though they were
completely wrong about the source--which was not who they talking to,
but HOW they were talking), and the person who was the "skeptic" hadn't
developed such a state.
So my question to believers is: when the technology becomes available
to recreate every "experience" of God's presence that you've ever had,
multiplied by a thousand, will you stop and think that maybe it's not
an external mind you're tapping into, but your own mind that is giving
you these experiences?
Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
> latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
> movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
> point of view.
>
> Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
> get alongside with them. You will make your scientific views more
> popular, and you will do Christianity a favor.
I want to learn about how the "self" evolved over time through the
development of species, and Christians in believing there's something
special and unknowable about the human "self" are going to prevent--are
preventing-- that knowledge from being learned in my lifetime.
Christianity was useful once when the world was as spooky as my bedroom
closet when I was five (hell, it's still kind of scary), it no longer
is as necessary and hopefully people will grow up and realize that.
>
> But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
> - "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
>
I agree with that, at least...
slothrop
> Stephen
Craig Pennington
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:41:12 GMT, in talk.origins
> Craig Pennington <cpen...@milo.org> wrote in
> <ccVXe.10942$%i1.10416@trnddc09>:
>>Yep. His claim is that while Madison included the Establishment Clause
>>in the same amendment with five other enumerated individual rights,
>>that it was intended to be *exclusively* a states right and not an
>>individual right and therefore does not apply to the states via the
>>14th Amendment even though the others do. He offers exactly zero
>>historical justification for his *interpretation*. Compare this to
>>his Hamdi opinion, where he appeals to Hamilton's authority for his
>>claim that the actions of a President and his administration are exempt
>>from judicial review during a time of war.
> I think that this could be correct in some sense. After all, the Federal
> government wasn't really designed to have much impact on citizens, it
> was just supposed to be the face to the world and co-ordinater of the
> rights and duties of states.
I might agree with this *if* the Establishment Clause weren't tied to
a bundle of otherwise exclusively individual rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
The five other rights enumerated in this Amendment are individual
rights. The intent is clearly to protect individual freedoms from
encroachment by the federal government. Additionally, the Free
Exercise Clause does not use the word "religion" relying (somewhat
awkwardly, IMO) on the a reference back to the use in the
Establishment Clause. I do not consider Thomas's *interpetation*
of the Establishment Clause as an *exclusively* federalist right
to be in good faith.
> What he misses is that we have been turning
> our federal government into a much more national government for a long
> time and that the Civil War Amendments were a nationalization of rights.
Actually, he covers this. From his opinion:
"I accept that the Free Exercise Clause, which clearly protects an
individual right, applies against the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment."
ref: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC2.html
His argument is not that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states.
His argument is that the intent of the Establishment Clause was to
*exclusively* protect the states *and* *not* *individuals* from
religious preferences by the federal government.
> He also misses the arguments of the opponents of the Bill of Rights,
> sadly proven true too often over the years, that enumerating the rights
> of citizens to be protected against abuses by their government will
> allow the government to grab everything not nailed down.
Yes, we often hear about the 10th Amendment from those who seek to
enable intrusive state governments; but most people ignore the 9th
(except perhaps to disparage "penumbra" rights.)
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[remainder snipped]
Elf M. Sternberg
> The only other argument I have heard is the "many universes" theory.
> Recently it occured to me that the "many universes" theory is just a
> philosophical rationalisation for conditional probability - i.e. "given
> that we do exist as we do, how must the universe be/have been." The
> "many universes" theory comes across as crass speculation, whereas the
> equivalent "conditional probability" approach seems like something that
> could easily be (or has been) axiomatised.
I think "axiomatizing" is a an exercise in mental masturbation
and has no place in reality: what is important is whether either
hypothesis gives any room for experimentation and analysis. Oddly
enough, it does, and so far the Everett-Wheeler-Graham "many worlds"
hypothesis has so far not been refuted.
> My impression is that the only reason people turn to God is that the
> Holy Spirit is eating away at their hearts until they finally give in.
Sounds gruesome, like something out of a Stephen King novel.
> whatever notion of God he has obtained thus far, is not going to
> qualify him for Christian salvation. So in this manner, it could be
> argued that I.D. has failed in its (apparent) ulterior purpose.
On the contrary, if ID is what moved Flew, ID has suceeded
beyond its wildest dreams. Even if Flew himself has refuted the
evidence that originally convinced him (and he has), ID proponents,
their allies, and their useful idiots continue to crow (now deceitfully,
but that has never stopped them) that ID has converted one of the
previously unconvertable, and that is pure propaganda material of the
first caliber.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
John Burton
> John Burton wrote:
>
>>Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>Lantog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been following the whole ID thing for over a decade now and I
>>>>hate to say it but I don't think biologists have done a great job in
>>>>combating ID. There is overwhelming evidence a thousand times over to
>>>>essentially prove evolution and demolish ID but no one person seems to
>>>>have the expertise in the diverse areas required to do it. I wrote a
>>>>query letter and outline for an article along these lines to Natural
>>>>History. They're "interested" but I missed the deadline for they're
>>>>special issue...but I may get to do it in the future.
>>>>If anyone disagrees with my contention I offer Antony Flew as
>>>>evidence. Flew is a well regarded philosopher from England who made a
>>>>name for himself based on rigorous arguments in favor of atheism and
>>>>opposed to religion. In the last year Flew announced, at the age of
>>>>81(?), that hes converted to deism. He claims it was the compelling
>>>>arguments of the IDers (and the anthropic principle) that converted
>>>>him!! Now granted his brain is probably a bit addled, but I'm sure hes
>>>>still a very smart guy. Hes also obviously not reading the primary
>>>>scientific literature..but still! Where are the simple, concise
>>>>refutations to the IDers that any nonscientist should be able to
>>>>recite??!!
>>>> RodW Lan...@aol.com
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd never heard of Flew before the ID scam. Frankly, anyone that made
>>>a name for himself as a philosopher avocating arguments for atheism
>>>would be pretty far down the list of competent philosophers as far as
>>>I'm concerned.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>> Who would waste their time on that subject? You'd have
>>
>>>to be so far around the bend that you'd practically be a deist or
>>>theist already, so it probably wasn't so much of a stretch for the guy.
>>
>>Advocating atheism is a waste of time? Should we just concede everything
>>to the theists? I guess I must be "pretty far around the bend".
>>
>>John
>
>
> It isn't giving up it is just the fact that you have to acknowledge
> that you can never win.
Sure I can. Ever heard of lurkers? There are websites detailing the
experiences of those who have converted from fundamentalism to less
extreme perspectives, including atheism. I can post links if you like.
I've participated in quite a few local discussions with "audiences"
including undecided people. I don't hope to "win" against opponents in a
debate, but there are a lot of other people out there.
John
If you can't do that, your reasoning powers
> aren't up to snuff. You might as well join Ed Conrad's crusade to
> verify his fossils.
>
> People have been arguing this junk for a very long time. Long before
> Flew was ever born, and where has it gotten anyone? If you think that
> you have something unique to offer put it forward, but don't expect
> much interest.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>>> His thought process was already so far out of it that all he had to do
>>>is step one step farther to his left and he found himself with the guys
>>>that he was arguing against. The distance was probably far greater if
>>>he would have had to walk back around the circle to reach the same
>>>conclusions. The extremes have really just wrapped their arms so far
>>>around that they are shaking hands with each other.
>>>
>>>Ron Okimoto
>>>
>
>
Ron O
This is changing the subject from the argument for atheism to getting
people to be more rational. You won't get me to argue about reason,
but you can forget the extreme positions, they are essentially
equivalent. They are never going to get any further then they already
have.
Ron Okimoto