OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 3:50:06 PM12/5/05
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

"Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of
inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
It has gained little support among the academics who should have been
its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the
case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's
credibility."

"On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs,
publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have
published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The
Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to
reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants
for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research."

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president
at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from
the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and
later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and
intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out
very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

<snicker>

--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind Science Since Forever

Chuck

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 4:25:17 AM12/6/05
to
Todd, you and the Sullster are completely obsessed with this Darwinism
and Intelligent Design debate. Here is a radical thought in the name of
education. *TEACH BOTH*, including the reason why each is controversial
and why each invites radical militance and intolerance. You are no less
intolerant that the radical right creationist.
Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
truth from fiction after being well-informed. You probably think the
government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
because individuals do not know any better. That is not freedom.
Some things we just can't know for sure:
-How does something come from nothing?
-Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
the universe?
-How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
purpose for it's being?
Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
in the academic community. As I have mentioned, many of our greatest
scientists (except for Sullivan - whom I would not label great) have at
least pondered the perplexity that is our existence and how there may
be "more than what we see" to life. CB
NP: The Revealing Science of Darwin

Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 7:58:28 AM12/6/05
to

Chuck wept:

> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?

Just because you need a reason to be doesn't mean all innocent children
should be subjected to your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Chuck

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 10:16:23 AM12/6/05
to

>Chris Jemmett

LOLOL Alrighty then... Putting into words a statement with a
question mark makes my beliefs what? Subjecting children to open minded
questioning that just may help them come to a conclusion that there are
some things we can not know for sure as mortal humans is OK and
actaully healthy IMO - we don't always need an answer. What is the Yes
song?; "Who says there's gotta be a reason.... gotta be an answer...."
-Shoot High Aim Low I believe. I never stated that I *need* anything.
Can you answer my question above? Point made. CB

Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 2:26:13 PM12/6/05
to

Chuck wrote:
> >> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> >> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> >> purpose for it's being?
>
> >Just because you need a reason to be doesn't mean all innocent children
> >should be subjected to your unsubstantiated beliefs.
> >Chris Jemmett

> LOLOL Alrighty then... Putting into words a statement with a
> question mark makes my beliefs what?

You're the one who put "teach both" in caps in reponse to an article
about how I.D. was losing support and without merit even among those
who should be supporting it. I don't need to say what that makes your
beliefs.

Subjecting children to open minded
> questioning that just may help them come to a conclusion that there are
> some things we can not know for sure as mortal humans is OK and
> actaully healthy IMO

We certainly don't need to teach I.D. in school for that to happen.


> - we don't always need an answer.

But some are looking, rationally and methodically.

What is the Yes
> song?; "Who says there's gotta be a reason.... gotta be an answer...."
> -Shoot High Aim Low I believe. I never stated that I *need* anything.

Oh, sorry, I thought your random-matter-induced-consciousness was
questioning it's reason for its being. My mistake.

> Can you answer my question above?

Which one?

> Point made.

Which one?

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 4:22:43 PM12/6/05
to
"Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> writes in message
news:1133861117....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Todd, you and the Sullster are completely obsessed with this Darwinism
> and Intelligent Design debate.

<snicker>

> Here is a radical thought in the name of
> education. *TEACH BOTH*, including the reason why each is controversial
> and why each invites radical militance and intolerance.

Did you *read* the attached link? There is no "both" sides to evolution.
There's evolution and then there's *you* don't agree with it. You wanna
teach I.D. in public schools? Fine, teach it in comparative religion or
mythology, but you *can't* teach it in a science class because it ain't
science.

> You are no less
> intolerant that the radical right creationist.

What did I just say? Teach "the controversy" if you want, just *dont'* teach
it in biology class.

> Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
> truth from fiction after being well-informed.

So you're ok with teaching astrology *and* astronomy? Teaching animism *and*
physics? Let the students "decide on their own" which is real and which
isn't? That's what you really think education is really all about?

> You probably think the
> government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
> because individuals do not know any better.

No, I think the government should teach people *science* in a *science*
class, not fantasy or religious dogma.

> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> -How does something come from nothing?

When it does.

> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> the universe?

Yes.

> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?

*Evolution*

> Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
> in the academic community.

And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...

> As I have mentioned, many of our greatest
> scientists (except for Sullivan - whom I would not label great) have at
> least pondered the perplexity that is our existence and how there may
> be "more than what we see" to life.

Right, I'm sure as a scientist Sullivan has never "pondered the perplexity
that is our existence". He just hates Awaken, which really pisses you off.

--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.


Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 4:52:47 PM12/6/05
to
"Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> writes in message
news:1133897173.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chuck wrote:
> > Point made.
>
> Which one?


This one:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/13337930.htm

*I. D. Kooks*

--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.


Stephen Bruun

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 9:36:13 PM12/6/05
to
"Todd Mitchell" <nous...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oInlf.4605$cA2...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/13337930.htm

"I did that joke in Alabama, in Fife, and these three rednecks met me after
the show. 'Hey, buddy, we're Christians, and we don't like what you said.'
I said, 'then forgive me.'
Later, when I was hanging from the tree..."
-- Bill Hicks

--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING


Chuck

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:31:20 AM12/7/05
to
>> Some things we just can't know for sure:
>> -How does something come from nothing?

>When it does.

LOL, case closed ?

>> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
>> the universe?

>Yes.

It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery

>> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
>> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
>> purpose for it's being?

>*Evolution*

So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it? And you
criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith. Your's is
as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
Again, you act like you absolutely know. I believe there are things we
cannot know for sure.
I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
a try Todd. CB

Zemborato

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 10:14:33 AM12/7/05
to

"Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133951480.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>>> Some things we just can't know for sure:
>>> -How does something come from nothing?
>
>>When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?
>
>>> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
>>> the universe?
>
>>Yes.
>
> It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
> possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery
>
>>> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
>>> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
>>> purpose for it's being?
>
>>*Evolution*
>
> So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.?


Chuck, you are confusing philosophy with science.

Once upon a time scientists pooh-poohed the notion of radio. That same
mentality will be critical of anything not yet in the realm of testability.
Give them that, because that kind of sensibility is what forces science to
be so accurate. There will always be people who pioneer beyond the current
abilities of science, and the scientists will always catch up. But if it
isn't that way, then every kooky idea will be given too much credence in the
interim.

Intelligent Design is the age-old "God in the gaps" theory, but it isn't
science, it is philosophy. In how many instances in the past has the "God
in the gaps" theory proven to be nothing more than superstition? Almost
always, is the answer to that. Science class is *not* for teaching both
science and superstition, or for teaching anything not conclusive or
compelling enough to be considered science or sound scientifically based
theory.

And no, I don't think evolutionary theory will ever fill in every gap in
understanding biology, so don't make the wrong assumptions about where I
ultimately stand on the issue. I am not an atomist. But until science has
the capacity to prove that the material world is a manifestation of
vibratory standing waves and harmonic systems of higher order, I'm perfectly
comfortable with that notion being philosophical more than scientific.
Science evolved out of philosophy, after all, and our understanding of the
universe is going to continue to evolve as well.

So to me, it looks like your discomfort with philosophy not being treated
equally with science is mostly an indication of the fragility of your
belief. So get over it, already.

Zem 2.0
------------------
Now with sig line!


Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 10:35:08 AM12/7/05
to

Chuck wrote:
> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>
> >When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?
>
> >> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> >> the universe?
>
> >Yes.
>
> It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
> possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery
>
> >> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> >> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> >> purpose for it's being?
>
> >*Evolution*
>
> So something just appears from nothing,

Who said that?

> has incredible order,

Really? The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
yet. Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?

Back up, Chuck. The first part of your statement was "something just
appeared from nothing". We don't know much about what appeared from
what or if it was nothing or anything. Still working on it, though. Not
ready to adopt your childish oversimplification just yet. You then say
"has incredible order", which completely ignores a fair amount of
disorder and a fair amount of, shall we call it, "we have no idea yet,
order/disorder, we haven't even found it yet".
So from those two questionable statements you then say:

" and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.?"

Which leaves us just the above super oversimplification that may well
be absolutely false as a wedge for your I.D. argument.

You want to teach in science class that "God made (designed) it all".
Your actual argument for doing that is that we haven't got it all
figured out yet.
You keep bringing up the idea that we don't know how we got here in the
mental/spiritual state we are in as a reason to teach people that some
big dude just sort of made it so.


> Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?

God help us! No!

And you
> criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith.

For taking *certain* leaps of faith.


>Your's is as large a leap as any mainstream religion.

Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
it is not a leap of faith. It is simply a result of and continuation of
scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
it all happened.


> Again, you act like you absolutely know.

Again, you really don't get the science thing, do you? Look, learn,
understand. Repeat.
The only people I ever see acting like they absolutely know are true
believers of the religious persuasion.

I believe there are things we
> cannot know for sure.


To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
science class is kind of retarded. That is were the debate here comes
from. Not from various a.m.y. entities being obsessed wth the debate,
nor from Todd or anyone else pretending that science has all the
answers. It dosen't even come from the desire of some to laugh at
fundies. It comes from I.D.ers trying to get their tripe into science
classes.

rob...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 10:48:36 AM12/7/05
to

Chuck wrote:
> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>
> >When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?


I'm still having trouble with this notion of "nothing".


Rob "seems like there's always something" Allen

use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 10:53:46 AM12/7/05
to
Chuck wrote

> I believe there are things we cannot know for sure.

I know there are things we cannot know for sure. Gödel's first
incompleteness theorem proves that in arithmetic, it is possible to
construct a statement that is true but cannot be proved. However, we
should try not to confuse those things that we cannot know for sure
from those things that we would like not to know for sure, from those
things that we don't currently know but which are knowable, and from
those things that are already known by others.

In other words, there are things we cannot know for sure, but the
development of the variety of life on Earth is something we do know an
awful lot about. The basic mechanism that explains the variety of life
on Earth is evolution by natural selection.
--
Henry

Blackpig

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:06:25 AM12/7/05
to
I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
Rumsfelt!

Mike Smith

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:15:18 AM12/7/05
to
Blackpig wrote:
> I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
> Rumsfelt!

Why not? Donald Rumsfeld is no dummy. He needs to learn to express
himself in a more press-friendly manner, and you may not like him from a
political standpoint, but he's a fairly smart cookie.

--
Mike Smith

Mike Smith

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:17:37 AM12/7/05
to
Chuck wrote:

> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> -How does something come from nothing?
> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> the universe?
> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?

What makes you think that we *can't* know these things, just because we
don't know them *yet*? There are lots and *lots* of things that, once
upon a time, we didn't know, but that we now *do* know.

--
Mike Smith

Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:37:16 AM12/7/05
to

Blackpig wrote:

> I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
> Rumsfelt!

LOL

That's not funny.

heh-heh

oh, it would be even more not funny if you quoted the bit that your not
funny reply refered to.
I got it but some people with poor or outdated software might not have
the rest of the thread in context and might not know what you're on
about.

Chuck

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 1:05:56 PM12/7/05
to
>What makes you think that we *can't* know these things, just because we
>don't know them *yet*? There are lots and *lots* of things that, once
>upon a time, we didn't know, but that we now *do* know.
--
>Mike Smith

That is a very compelling point Mike. I always liked the line "How did
we become master's of limitation"? -JA You are correct in that I
believe that the word "can't" is way over used. Thank you for the
inspiration towards open-minded thought. I recall reading a book by a
brilliant physicist who was stating (pardon the memory lapse) That
"something could originate from nothing and modern physics was proving
it". It was also a compelling read but I still struggled with that
theory.(being "a mortal as me" could be a factor). Regardless of the
debate. I choose hope and wonderment in this life..... CB

rojon

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 1:07:10 PM12/7/05
to
Chris Jemmett wrote:


>
> The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> yet.


Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
answers. YET today, you have no "facts."

You exist, what you believe about it is based in faith only.


> Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
> brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
> easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?
>

It seems just as easy to say there are countless steps we don't know
about yet.


> Back up, Chuck. The first part of your statement was "something just
> appeared from nothing". We don't know much about what appeared from
> what or if it was nothing or anything. Still working on it, though. Not
> ready to adopt your childish oversimplification just yet.


The only reason I can see for you to call his view a "childish
oversimplification" is in an attempt to condescend, considering that
faced with "no facts" about how life began, you yourself believe
nothing more that a fairy tale.

> You then say
> "has incredible order", which completely ignores a fair amount of
> disorder


Disorder is the accepted state of the universe, this is business as
usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
result of order.

> and a fair amount of, shall we call it, "we have no idea yet,
> order/disorder, we haven't even found it yet".
> So from those two questionable statements you then say:
>
> " and then
> > evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> > existence.?"
>
> Which leaves us just the above super oversimplification that may well
> be absolutely false as a wedge for your I.D. argument.
>
> You want to teach in science class that "God made (designed) it all".
> Your actual argument for doing that is that we haven't got it all
> figured out yet.

This is not what ID represents. ID teaches that the order that we see
is far too complex to be the result of a random process. It does not
teach God.


>
> you
> > criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith.
>
> For taking *certain* leaps of faith.
>
>
> >Your's is as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
>
> Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
> it is not a leap of faith.


First of all, you jumped from talking about how life began to
discussing evolution. He said you DO takes leaps of faith and you do.
How did life begin? Life could not evolve unless it began. Did it begin
with God or without? If you can't prove one way or the other, feel free
to condescend while glossing over that with whatever childish
oversimplification you enjoy.

> It is simply a result of and continuation of
> scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
> up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
> it all happened.
>

What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
How would they come to this conclusion?

>
> > Again, you act like you absolutely know.
>
> Again, you really don't get the science thing, do you? Look, learn,
> understand. Repeat.
> The only people I ever see acting like they absolutely know are true
> believers of the religious persuasion.

Seen a mirror?


>
> I believe there are things we
> > cannot know for sure.
>
>
> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
> science class is kind of retarded.

You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.


> That is were the debate here comes
> from. Not from various a.m.y. entities being obsessed wth the debate,
> nor from Todd or anyone else pretending that science has all the
> answers. It dosen't even come from the desire of some to laugh at
> fundies. It comes from I.D.ers trying to get their tripe into science
> classes.

Fundies and tripe and pretending science has all the answers? You are
conflicted sir.

Teakbois

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 1:41:04 PM12/7/05
to

use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Chuck wrote
> > I believe there are things we cannot know for sure.
>
> I know there are things we cannot know for sure. Gödel's first
> incompleteness theorem proves that in arithmetic, it is possible to
> construct a statement that is true but cannot be proved. However, we
> should try not to confuse those things that we cannot know for sure
> from those things that we would like not to know for sure, from those
> things that we don't currently know but which are knowable, and from
> those things that are already known by others.
>

Do you really know that? :-)

Mike Smith

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 2:34:35 PM12/7/05
to
rojon wrote:
> Chris Jemmett wrote:
>
>>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
>>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
>>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
>>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
>>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
>>yet.
>
> Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> the development of life.

That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
camp knows.

> You believe science will someday discover the
> answers. YET today, you have no "facts."

That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
considered to be "mysterious".

> You exist, what you believe about it is based in faith only.
>
>>Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
>>brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
>>easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?
>
> It seems just as easy to say there are countless steps we don't know
> about yet.

Not if one then proceeds to actually attempt to *discover* those steps,
as scientists do.

> Disorder is the accepted state of the universe, this is business as
> usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
> order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
> talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
> magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
> argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
> an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
> fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
> result of order.

I don't know what you mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the
universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies, which proceed
outward from the Big Bang in a directed, orderly fashion. Stars turn
simpler elements into more complex ones, and in so doing create the
building blocks of planets, and in some cases (one we know of so far,
but no reason to believe that it is *only* one) the life that emerges
upon them. Even without the existence of intelligent life on earth, the
universe is a highly ordered place, one which is tending *toward*
disorder as time goes on.

>>Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
>>it is not a leap of faith.
>
> First of all, you jumped from talking about how life began to
> discussing evolution. He said you DO takes leaps of faith and you do.
> How did life begin? Life could not evolve unless it began. Did it begin
> with God or without? If you can't prove one way or the other, feel free
> to condescend while glossing over that with whatever childish
> oversimplification you enjoy.

There you go again. "We don't know how life began" does not constitute
evidence in favor of intelligent design. The fact that science does not
yet have a solid answer about where life on earth came from, does not
earn ID any points in its own favor.

>>It is simply a result of and continuation of
>>scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
>>up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
>>it all happened.
>
> What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
> outside the realm of observable evidence?

Then the ID camp will never have any evidence to support *its* position,
and is dead in the water.

> You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.

See Sagan's argument about the dragon in the garage.

--
Mike Smith

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 3:39:39 PM12/7/05
to
Mike Smith <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> wrote:
> rojon wrote:
> > Chris Jemmett wrote:
> >
> >>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> >>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> >>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> >>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> >>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> >>yet.
> >
> > Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> > word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> > the development of life.

> That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
> camp knows.

> > You believe science will someday discover the
> > answers. YET today, you have no "facts."

> That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
> that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
> sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
> considered to be "mysterious".


I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.

The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
on the side of evolution...and no amount of drivel from
blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
going to change that.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

rojon

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 3:49:24 PM12/7/05
to

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Mike Smith <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> wrote:
> > rojon wrote:
> > > Chris Jemmett wrote:
> > >
> > >>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> > >>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> > >>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> > >>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> > >>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> > >>yet.
> > >
> > > Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> > > word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> > > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> > > the development of life.
>
> > That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
> > camp knows.
>
> > > You believe science will someday discover the
> > > answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
>
> > That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
> > that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
> > sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
> > considered to be "mysterious".
>
>
> I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.


I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
calling.


>
> The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> on the side of evolution...


Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.


> and no amount of drivel from
> blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> going to change that.
>


If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:17:33 PM12/7/05
to
"rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> writes in message
news:1133988564.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
*isn't* science. It's nonsense.

> >
> > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > on the side of evolution...
>
>
> Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.

Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
known as I.D., remember?

>
> > and no amount of drivel from
> > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > going to change that.
> >
>
>
> If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.

Or you could just admit I.D. is non-science based palbum and save everyone
the hassle.

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:20:13 PM12/7/05
to
"Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> writes in message
news:1133969708.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chuck wrote:
> > Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?
>
> God help us! No!

I'm here, Chris. And when I say the case is closed, it's *closed*. Haven't
you figured it out yet? "Todd" is code for *God*.

Case closed.

--
God: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.


Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:24:12 PM12/7/05
to
"Mike Smith" <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> writes in message
news:11pe2p3...@news.supernews.com...

<snicker> You've been readin the "poetry of D. H. Rumsfeld" again I see:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
-Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:34:54 PM12/7/05
to
"Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> writes in message
news:1133951480.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?

Case closed because evolution *is* science and I.D. isn't science. I don't
have any idea how evolution explains consciousness. But I *do* know it would
*never* say "An intelligent creator created it", which is what I.D.
purports. Read *science*, Chuck, don't listen to me.

> And you
> criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith. Your's is
> as large a leap as any mainstream religion.

Nonsense. Science doesn't require *faith* or *belief*.
Science *is* what it is...you either accept it or reject it.

> Again, you act like you absolutely know. I believe there are things we
> cannot know for sure.

I pretend no such thing. I understand the "gaps in evolution" stuff Zem
mentioned, and I recognize that evolution can't explain *every* single thing
about existence. But it's the *only* discipline that can explain what *is*
real, observable, verifiable, testable.

Religion, philosophy, metaphysics, et al are more than welcome to "fill in
the gaps" of science all they want. But they aren't science. And what they
say about said gaps can't be taught as such.

> I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
> from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
> genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
> interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
> many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
> a try Todd.

Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.

--
God: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:36:14 PM12/7/05
to
rojon <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:

What lack of facts is FAILING to be ackowledged, rojo? Science has NEVER
claimed to have the complete story. About anything. And which
realm of endeavor -- science or religion -- is constantly working
towards moving more ideas out of the realm of speculationa nd into the
realm of FACT?


> > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > on the side of evolution...


> Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.

I know, because you will LOSE that debate.

Science doesn't 'know' how the universe came to be, the way Jebus
lovers 'know'. It doesn't 'know' how life arose, the way Jebus lovers
do. That's because divine revelations just doesn't cut
it as science, and never will..though Jebus lovers are
trying their hardest to shoehorn divine revelation into science curriculums.

> > and no amount of drivel from
> > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > going to change that.
> >


> If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.

Please decide what the track is, Jebus-lovers. Please. If it's really about
overthrowing materialism, then stop blathering on about origin of
life, evolution, i.e, shit you know far less about than science does.
Tell the truth for once.

rojon

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 4:57:58 PM12/7/05
to

Todd Mitchell wrote:
> "rojon" wrote
> >
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > >
> > > I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
> >
> >
> > I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
> > calling.
>
> LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
> not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
> *isn't* science. It's nonsense.
>


True, you posted a story about ID VS Evolution in classrooms. But
following that, the section I entered was when CJ condescended upon
Chuck upon the mount of spontaneous generation.


> > >
> > > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > > on the side of evolution...
> >
> >
> > Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
>
> Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
> known as I.D., remember?
>


Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
all evolutioners say it is unrelated. Or am I supposed to pay homage to
the original subject in every post that wanders off center? Is there no
end to the crap you guys nitpick at?


> >
> > > and no amount of drivel from
> > > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > > going to change that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.
>
> Or you could just admit I.D. is non-science based palbum and save everyone
> the hassle.
>

said the caboose


> Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Coal Car Since 1804.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:27:02 PM12/7/05
to
Todd Mitchell <nous...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> writes in message
> news:1133951480.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> > evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> > existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?

> Case closed because evolution *is* science and I.D. isn't science. I don't
> have any idea how evolution explains consciousness. But I *do* know it would
> *never* say "An intelligent creator created it", which is what I.D.
> purports. Read *science*, Chuck, don't listen to me.


It's not like science isn't interested in teh question.
Here's the refs from just ONE recent short review of consciousness and evolution.
It's not exhaustive of the literature by any means.


References
1 Darwin C. 1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray.
2 James W. 1879. Are we automata? Mind 4: 1-22. Links
3 Popper KR. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355. Links
4 Popper KR, Eccles JC. 1977. The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5 Lindahl BIB. 1997. Consciousness and biological evolution. J Theor Biol 187: 613-629. Links
6 Lindahl BIB. 2001. Consciousness, behavioural patterns and the direction of biological evolution: implications
for the mind-brain problem. In: Pylkkänen P , Vadén T , editors. Dimensions of Conscious Experience. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company. p 73-99.
7 Watkins J. 1995. Popper and Darwinism. In: O'Hear A , editor. Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p 191-206.
8 Lindahl BIB, Århem P. 1994. Mind as a force field: comments on a new interactionistic hypothesis. J Theor Biol
171: 111-122. Links
9 Edelman GM. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. London: Allen Lane.
10 Pepperberg IM, Lynn SK. 2000. Possible levels of animal consciousness with reference to grey parrots (Psittacus
erithacus). Amer Zool 40: 893-901. Links
11 Crick F. 1994. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Simon & Schuster.
12 Crick F, Koch C. 1995. Are we aware of neural activity in primary visual cortex? Nature 375: 121-123. Links
13 Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. 2002. Neural correlates of consciousness in human. Nature Reviews 3: 261-270. Links
14 Koch C. 2004. The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Eaglewood: Roberts and Company
Publishers.
15 Edelman GM. 2003. Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 5520-5524.
Links
16 Edelman GM, Tononi G. 2000. A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books.
17 Tononi G, Edelman GM. 1998. Consciousness and complexity. Science 282: 1846-1851. Links
18 Eccles JC. 1982. Animal consciousness and human self-consciousness. Experientia 38: 1384-1391. Links
19 Eccles JC. 1990. A unitary hypothesis of mind-brain interactions in the cerebral cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B 240:
433-451. Links
20 Eccles JC. 1992. Evolution of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 7320-7324. Links
21 Beck F, Eccles JC. 1992. Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
89: 11357-11361. Links
22 Cotterill RMJ. 2001. Cooperation of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, sensory cerebrum and hippocampus: possible
implications for cognition, consciousness, intelligence and creativity. Prog Neurobiol 64: 1-33. Links
23 John ER. 2001. A field theory of consciousness. Cons Cogn 10: 184-213. Links
24 Parvizi J, Damasio A. 2001. Consciousness and the brainstem. Cognition 79: 135-159. Links
25 Århem P, Liljenström H, Lindahl BIB. 2003. Consciousness and comparative neuroanatomy. Report on the Agora
Workshop in Sigtuna, Sweden, on 21 August, 2002. J Consciousness Studies 10: 85-88. Links
26 Jones EG. 2001. The thalamic matrix and thalamocortical synchrony. Trends Neurosci 24: 595-601. Links
27 Hodos W. Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, in
press.
28 Roth G. 2000. The evolution and ontogeny of consciousness. In: Metzinger T , editor; Neural Correlates of
Consciousness. Empirical and Conceptual Questions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p 77-97.
29 Reisz RR. 1997. The origin and early evolutionary history of amniotes. Trends Ecol Evol 12: 218-222. Links
30 Hockett CF, Altmann SA. 1968. A note on design features. In: Sebeok TA , editor; Animal Communication.
Broomington: Indiana University Press.
31 Griffin DR. 2001. Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32 MacPhail E. 1998. The Evolution of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33 Jerison H. 1973. The Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. New York: Academic Press.

> > I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
> > from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
> > genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
> > interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
> > many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
> > a try Todd.

> Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
> putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.


Better yet, sample these (list and comments courtesy of Dr. P.Z. Myers www.pharyngula.com) --

For the grown-up layman:

Charles Darwin: Voyaging and Charles Darwin : The Power of Place. Janet Browne. This is the best biography of Darwin out
there.

Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. John A. Moore. This is part history book, part
philosophy of science book; if you know someone who doesn't understand the scientific method, this one will straighten
him out.

The Darwin Wars. Andrew Brown. Much as we aspire to the pure search for knowledge, scientists can be testy and political
and vicious, too—this is a study of the sociology of evolutionary biology.

Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Carl Zimmer. If you want a general survey of the history and ideas of evolutionary
biology that isn't written like a textbook, this is the one you want.

At the Water's Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea. Carl
Zimmer. The focus in this one is on macroevolution of tetrapods and cetaceans. Excellently written, with a very thorough
overview of the evidence.

Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution. Richard Fortey. Everything you need to know about the basics of trilobytes, with a
chatty and often amusing introduction to the world of paleontologists.

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Jonathan Weiner. A Pulitzer-winning account of the work of
Peter and Rosemary Grant in documenting the evolutionary changes occurring in Darwin's finches in the Galapagos right
now.

What Evolution Is. Ernst Mayr. A survey of the theory by an opinionated master.

Evolutionary Biology. Douglas J. Futuyma. If you don't mind reading a textbook, this is one of the best and most popular
texts on the subject.

An Introduction to Biological Evolution. Kenneth Kardong. Another textbook, but less weighty and less expensive then
Futuyma's; a book I'd use in a freshman non-majors course.

For the more advanced/specialized reader:

On Growth and Form. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. I'm afraid no developmental biologist can list important books without
mentioning this one.

From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier,
Scott D. Weatherbee. Like it says…molecular genetics, evolution, developmental biology. A good textbook describing the
new cutting edge of evolutionary biology.

Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?. David M. Raup. A little statistics, a lot of paleontology, a good introduction to
how we try to puzzle out what the world was like from a sparse data set.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Stephen J. Gould. Massive. Indulgently written. But full of interesting ideas.

Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Mary Jane West-Eberhard. Also massive. If you're already comfortable with the
conventional perspective on evolutionary theory, though, this one twists it around and comes at it from the point of
view of a developmental biologist.

Biased Embryos and Evolution. Wallace Arthur. A slim and readable book about evo-devo.

The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Richard Lewontin. A slender book that lucidly summarizes the
non-reductionist position on modern biology; it's a call for greater breadth in science.

The Shape of Life : Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Rudy Raff. Hardcore evo-devo. A little out of
date, but very influential.
For the anti-creationist:

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross. The best summary of
the sneaky political strategy of the creationists of the Discovery Institute.

Unintelligent Design. Mark Perakh. Nice, blunt dissection of the pseudo-science of creationism.

Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Matt Young, Taner Edis, eds. A team-takedown
of Intelligent Design's bad science.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:35:30 PM12/7/05
to
rojon <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:

> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > "rojon" wrote
> > >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > > >
> > > > I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
> > >
> > >
> > > I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
> > > calling.
> >
> > LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
> > not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
> > *isn't* science. It's nonsense.
> >


> True, you posted a story about ID VS Evolution in classrooms. But
> following that, the section I entered was when CJ condescended upon
> Chuck upon the mount of spontaneous generation.


> > > >
> > > > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > > > on the side of evolution...
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
> >
> > Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
> > known as I.D., remember?
> >


> Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
> all evolutioners say it is unrelated. Or am I supposed to pay homage to
> the original subject in every post that wanders off center? Is there no
> end to the crap you guys nitpick at?


If you're *really* interested in origin-of-life issues, rojo,
suck on the *272* articles that come up when one searches
just the *titles* in Medline/PubMed with the phrase 'origin of life'
(there's rather more if one searches abstracts as well).
You might even find the one of two ID-ish papers that flew in
below the scientific radar. The search term is
"origin of life"[TI], in case you're interested.

But you aren't *really* interested, are you?
This is all about ideology and culture war, not learning,
for your type.

Chuck

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:43:40 PM12/7/05
to
>I'm still having trouble with this notion >of "nothing".
>Rob "seems like there's always >something" Allen

That is actually a valid point. Many scientists state that matter may
have *always* existed. The finite brain has trouble comprehending
"always". CB

Chuck

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:47:33 PM12/7/05
to
>Todd.
>Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
>putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0972347313/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-0665724-2616965?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

CB

Mike Smith

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 5:52:34 PM12/7/05
to
rojon wrote:
>
> Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
> all evolutioners say it is unrelated.

That's because... wait for it... it's *unrelated*.

--
Mike Smith

Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 6:26:29 PM12/7/05
to

rojon wrote:


> Fundies and tripe and pretending science has all the answers? You are
> conflicted sir.

Show me where I or anyone here has claimed or even pretended that


science has all the answers.

You are confused, sir and are amazingly creative in how you manage to
demonstrate that confusion.

Peter

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 8:22:59 PM12/7/05
to
On 7 Dec 2005 02:31:20 -0800, "Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> wrote:

>So something just appears from nothing

Who said something comes from nothing? Read some multidimensional
modern string theory to see how the Universe, or at least the one we
reside in, results due to the energy release that occurs in the
intersection between two manifolds in the greater space-time
continuum.

> has incredible order

Who said it had "incredible order"? The universe is a seriously
chaotic place, and with the reality of entropy is becoming more
disordered every day.

>evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
>existence.?

I would contend that all DNA structures, the Universe over, results in
the evolution of intelligent life. The mistake is in human arrogance
supposing we have something unique.

>I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
>from Modern Science to the Mind of God".

I'll check it out, thanks for the tip.

Peter

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 8:37:38 PM12/7/05
to
On 7 Dec 2005 10:07:10 -0800, "rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:


>Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
>word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps

I know how I get to work everyday, but I don't know all the individual
rocks and pepples along the way. And in fact, beyond seeing the
overall direction, those countless details are most likely irrelevant.

> you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
>the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
>answers. YET today, you have no "facts."

There are plenty of facts, what the IDers don't have are facts to back
up *their* suppositions, instead only trying to counter evolutionist
arguments with philosophical conjecture. One solid piece of data that
demonstrates that *anything* was created through ID would be helpful.

>Disorder is the accepted state of the universe,

"Accepted"? This implies there is a choice in order or disorder. There
is virtually no systematic order in the Universe short of a few
elemtary laws, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear
forces. And there's no proof that those are unique to the
"Multiverse", just to the specific space-time continuum we happen to
be inhabiting.

>usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
>order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
>talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
>magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
>argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
>an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
>fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
>result of order.

I see no order here, only the human mind putting a pattern to
non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
everyone. Bear in mind, I believe in God, but the Universe is what it
is, and it's far more complex than what you are describing, and I also
believe there may be some order at some level, but for your arguments
to hold true, they must be far more vigorous than "we breathe and we
love". Life is going to prove to be very common in this Universe.

>This is not what ID represents. ID teaches that the order that we see
>is far too complex to be the result of a random process. It does not
>teach God.

Whether or not you want that to be the case, the fact is that ID is
being used as a political tool for the religious right to push
creationism on people. Btw, evolution is *NOT* random at all, it is
basesd upon clear, logical principles of natural selection.

>What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
>outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
>How would they come to this conclusion?

If God did, then He created Science also, in order that we might
someday learn about Him and His creation.

>> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
>> science class is kind of retarded.
>
>You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.

True, and I agree that belief in no God is as much a matter of faith
as belief in God. But ID should NOT be taught in a science context as
it is not, in any way, scientific. It is not a theory, it has no
evidence supporting it, it is strictly a matter of faith, therefore,
if it is taught at all, should only be done so in the context of
relition and mythology classes - which btw, I support, but my classes
wouldn't make most Christians too happy, since I would give all major
religions equal time (or perhaps allocate it based on worldwide
distribution of belief systems - I think Islam wins in that case).
Christians do not have a monopoly on God.


Peter

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 8:41:17 PM12/7/05
to

Yes, I refer folks again back to reading up on multidimensional string
theory and modern interpretations on hos the Universe emerged from the
overlapping of various "manifolds" of multidimensional space-time.

rojon

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:30:19 PM12/7/05
to
Peter wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 10:07:10 -0800, "rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> >word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps
>
> I know how I get to work everyday, but I don't know all the individual
> rocks and pepples along the way. And in fact, beyond seeing the
> overall direction, those countless details are most likely irrelevant.
>


You know how to get to work. We don't know how life began.

> > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> >the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
> >answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
>
> There are plenty of facts, what the IDers don't have are facts to back

> up *their* suppositions, instead only trying to counter evolutionist...


Why is it no one can focus on the subject at hand. It is like pointing
the way for butterflies

> arguments with philosophical conjecture. One solid piece of data that
> demonstrates that *anything* was created through ID would be helpful.
>
> >Disorder is the accepted state of the universe,
>
> "Accepted"? This implies there is a choice in order or disorder.


Aaaargh! Accepted, meaning that most scientists accept the concept of
entropy. How about "Disorder is a widely accepted state of the
universe, minus Peter.


> There
> is virtually no systematic order in the Universe short of a few
> elemtary laws


You say potato...


> such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear
> forces. And there's no proof that those are unique to the
> "Multiverse", just to the specific space-time continuum we happen to
> be inhabiting.
>

I shall await ET's entry in this thread.


> > That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
> >order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
> >talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
> >magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
> >argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
> >an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
> >fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
> >result of order.
>
> I see no order here

Bullshit.

You can battle it out with Mike who just said, "I don't know what you


mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the

universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies..."
You two disagree with my point but by using opposite logic.


> only the human mind putting a pattern to
> non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
> everyone.


The need being what? To perceive order?


> Bear in mind, I believe in God, but the Universe is what it
> is, and it's far more complex than what you are describing


It is also far more complex than you or mike or chuck or chris or todd
or stephen or steve or zembarato are describing. Your concept of what I
believe seems to range from thinking I am attached to dogma while
giving interesting descriptions of Yes music.


> and I also
> believe there may be some order at some level


Remember when I said bullshit? See above.


> but for your arguments
> to hold true, they must be far more vigorous than "we breathe and we
> love".


Shouldn't that be breath and hope and chase and love?


>
> Life is going to prove to be very common in this Universe.
>


ID is going to prove that man was designed.

> >ID...does not


> >teach God.
>
> Whether or not you want that to be the case, the fact is that ID is
> being used as a political tool for the religious right to push
> creationism on people.


I think ID provides a way to remove religion from concepts that have
been under the domain of religion. As such we had to distance ourselves
from promoting a "religion." Now the ideas themselves can be considered
free from this entanglement. I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
will succeed.


> Btw, evolution is *NOT* random at all, it is
> basesd upon clear, logical principles of natural selection.
>

I hate to tell you but even natural selection would require order. To
develop a thumb there has to be an ordered universe where the use of a
thumb merits advancement over the lack of. The development of eyes
relies on that there is something to see, a concept to form and a
reason to see it, even if it is for food.


> >What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
> >outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
> >How would they come to this conclusion?
>
> If God did, then He created Science also, in order that we might
> someday learn about Him and His creation.
>

You say. And science is good tool, but what if God did not wish to be
seen by this revealing of science? What if God wishes to stand outside
of the observable? There could be a clear motive for this. "Young man,
just wait until your Father gets home." This is a universal Mom
statement that shows that kids misbehave in the absence of authority.
When the cats away. Judeao/Christian religions say one reaches God by
faith. If we can prove God exists, we won't need faith. Father will be
home. I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
the path rather than intellect. Science will never discover why we
exist. Why is outside the realm of the observable. In this existence,
you can only come to "why" thorough faith. You can like it or lump it.
But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
we exist.


> >> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
> >> science class is kind of retarded.
> >
> >You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.
>
> True, and I agree that belief in no God is as much a matter of faith
> as belief in God.

We do agree on that.

> But ID should NOT be taught in a science context as
> it is not, in any way, scientific.


Going in circles. ID is not teaching a path to God, or about God.


> It is not a theory, it has no
> evidence supporting it


In the Atheism.Music.Yes? thread, I explained the rebuttal to the squid
eye argument against intelligent design. The complex order in the
assembly of the human eye is sufficient as a counter argument against
these claims. Will this explanation be accepted by evolutionists? No.
Why? They choose to believe by faith that which they are committed to.
Evidence is what you make of it.

> it is strictly a matter of faith, therefore,
> if it is taught at all, should only be done so in the context of
> relition and mythology classes - which btw, I support, but my classes
> wouldn't make most Christians too happy, since I would give all major
> religions equal time (or perhaps allocate it based on worldwide
> distribution of belief systems - I think Islam wins in that case).
> Christians do not have a monopoly on God.


The only monopoly on God is the one he holds, he names himself.

Chet

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:30:35 PM12/7/05
to

Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2005, 10:35pm (PST+8) From:
ssu...@panix.com (Steven Sullivan)
---


You sound like a school book. ...a Public School book.

Chet

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:34:48 PM12/7/05
to

Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2005, 3:26pm From:
ccje...@rogers.com (Chris Jemmett)
---

What does your book say?

Chet

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:38:03 PM12/7/05
to

Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2005, 11:15am (PST+3) From:
mikeUNDER...@acm.org (Mike Smith)
Blackpig wrote:
I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
Rumsfelt!
Why not? Donald Rumsfeld is no dummy. He needs to learn to express
himself in a more press-friendly manner, and you may not like him from a
political standpoint, but he's a fairly smart cookie.
--
Mike Smith
---

Is that what your public school book told you? Political Science

Peter

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 12:39:17 AM12/8/05
to
On 7 Dec 2005 20:30:19 -0800, "rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:

>Why is it no one can focus on the subject at hand. It is like pointing
>the way for butterflies

What subject are you discussing? ID? If so, then the argument is very
clear. Provide something to counter it. Or better yet, instead of
arguing about how life was formed, when we have clear evidence of it,
discuss where consciousness comes from. Far more interesting, and not
provable by either side.

>Aaaargh! Accepted, meaning that most scientists accept the concept of
>entropy. How about "Disorder is a widely accepted state of the
>universe, minus Peter.

Entropy is FACT, Rojon. That some choose to ignore FACT doesn't make
it not FACT.

>I shall await ET's entry in this thread.

You should. The probability is that we are not in any way special.


>You can battle it out with Mike who just said, "I don't know what you
>mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the
>universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies..."
>You two disagree with my point but by using opposite logic.

Those are simple laws of gravitation. Yes, there are certain
fundamental properties of matter, of course there are. There may well
be other Universes in which those forces vary significantly. If you
choose only to believe in yuor own presuppositions, then you aren't
doing God any good whatsoever. We are here to LEARN, and learning
requires understanding FACT.

>> only the human mind putting a pattern to
>> non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
>> everyone.
>
>
>The need being what? To perceive order?

Yes, exactly, a need to perceive order when there is none.

>It is also far more complex than you or mike or chuck or chris or todd
>or stephen or steve or zembarato are describing. Your concept of what I
>believe seems to range from thinking I am attached to dogma while
>giving interesting descriptions of Yes music.

I have no clear idea of what you believe, because you don't state
positive points here, you argue others' points by saying they aren't
true. That isn't discourse. And I'm sorry that you think it is a
problem that you have interetsing descriptions of Yes music.

But be precise about what you believe, as I was several days ago,
when I clearly laid out how I think God, man, faith and science are an
intertwined whole.

Science and fiath search for the same thing, and the Universe and God
are a symbiotic thing. That does NOT preclude natural forces from
working within themselves without the formation of some particular
plan. You put 100 billion galaxies in a pot, stir up the appropriate
chemicals and energy and what comes out is LIFE! We, as priimitive
humans have created most of the precursors in a few decades, and
already know that the precursor molecules exist in interstellar
clouds. By suggesting that there is anything to any of it that makes
us or this Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism, IMO. ID
strongly suggests that we are somehow a special creature in this
universe, and I'm not even certain we're the most special creatures on
this planet.

>ID is going to prove that man was designed.

ID has proven not a single thing, as it has no logical, philosophical
or contextual basis, as well as not a shred of evidence. Telling
others how they are wrong does not give you any insight as to what is
right. You can follow your heart, but that doesn't mean that those
beliefs correlate to the evidence.

Give a clear, convincing, logical, non-emotional argument that
explains the actual data, and back it up with predictions, and then
everyone will follow the theory. No one has yet done so.

>I think ID provides a way to remove religion from concepts that have
>been under the domain of religion.

No, it doesn't. It can only work within the context of a *designer*.
Who might that be?

> Now the ideas themselves can be considered free from this entanglement.

Only from those who want to free themselves from the burden of
consistency. I'll repeat this time: It can only work within the
context of a *designer*. Who might that be?

> I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
>suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
>will succeed.

I've thrown down the gauntlet, forget the other's insults, and talk
honestly. I'm open to real discussion, but you need to convince me of
a system that works universally and fits the observed data. I'm not
worried about you proving God exists, I want your arguments as to why
ID is right. So far, nothing that has been provided in this or other
threads has done so. The various links have, IMO, only tried to
explain why "bloggers" (for all practical purposes) with little or no
understanding of science, or the realities of the natural world around
them, believe that evolution is wrong. If you do not fear what Gmelin
has said, then use *science* to prive ID, if it isn't faith based,
then you should be able to find solid evidence of it.

>I hate to tell you but even natural selection would require order. To
>develop a thumb there has to be an ordered universe where the use of a
>thumb merits advancement over the lack of. The development of eyes
>relies on that there is something to see, a concept to form and a
>reason to see it, even if it is for food.

Yes, the human mind does like to create order out of non-ordered
patterns, doesn't it. Senses OF COURSE are going to react to the
environment around them, that's more or less the first thing that has
to exist for any life to survive.. If you are simply saying that
evolution is the way God's plan works, then fine. Let's be done with
the discussion and move on.

>You say. And science is good tool, but what if God did not wish to be
>seen by this revealing of science? What if God wishes to stand outside
>of the observable?

God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks, the
trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
ugly. Our hands are God's hands. But we and the whole universe have
"free will", at best the "guidance" you look for are in the natural
laws, which are only valid for this section of the Multiverse. NONE of
this precludes evolution or implies an intelligent plan to get from
point A in time to point B in time.

> I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
>the path rather than intellect.

Sorry, this just isn't the way I see the Universe at all. God doesn't
play games like that. With faith, prayer and meditation you can see
God any time you want. That's what the repressed Gnostics tried to
teach, the secret Christian doctrines that were crushed by the Roman
Church, since THEY wanted to play Dad, and punish those who didn't pay
their tithings on time, or kiss the right royal butt. God didn't
choose "faith over intellect". HE GAVE US BOTH!!!!!!! He expects us to
use BOTH. All the time, as the situation requires.

It's the false religious doctrines, that truly insult God, IMO, which
have tried to empower the ignorant and the greedy into convincing
those who they would lead no to think for themselves, not to discover
the world and it's many wonders and realities.

> Science will never discover why we exist. Why is outside the realm of the observable.

Not at all, it's inside all of us all the time. Your world view has
severely limited the capabilities of an infinite God.

> In this existence, you can only come to "why" thorough faith. You can like it or lump it.
>But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
>we exist.

Science doesn't reject God. In fact, the bulk of scientists in the US
are believers, despite what you may see here. Most don't follow
particular dogmas. Science attempts to define the reality of the world
around us. That's all. Faith is about matters of the spirit, the
source of consciousness, not the source of matter.

>Going in circles. ID is not teaching a path to God, or about God.

Who was the designer? Simple question, please answer in as definitive
way as you can, please.

>In the Atheism.Music.Yes? thread, I explained the rebuttal to the squid
>eye argument against intelligent design. The complex order in the
>assembly of the human eye is sufficient as a counter argument against
>these claims.

No, it doesn't say anything to prove intelligent design, it merely
proves that nature is capable of producing complex items. We'll find
that eyeballs exist by the millions of trillions, if we live another
couple of hundred years. Besides, we are not looking for a
"counter-argument",we are looking for one clear piece of evidence that
cannot be explained away, one solid logical train that explains the
fossil record, that explains the evolution of the eye from the
primitive spider's all the way to humanity.

> Will this explanation be accepted by evolutionists? No.

Of course not, it contains no logic, only emotional rhetoric. "See, it
just can't be any other way", is not an explanation.

But then again, will any logic and evidence be accepted by ID'ers.
Apparently not.

>Why? They choose to believe by faith that which they are committed to.
>Evidence is what you make of it.

No, evidence is in the fossil and DNA. Find some evidence in DNA. ONE
gene that indicates that it couldn't have been formed through natural
selection. I have plenty of personal evidence of God's existence due
to God's interaction with my consciousness, but all the hard data of
natural phenomenon are much more easily explained through natural law
then by some being simply willing things to be so. Again, if you are
to insist that natural laws are there because of God's plan, then the
argumant becomes circular, and there's no point in continuing.


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 2:17:11 AM12/8/05
to

another installment in the continuing series of 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'


Margaret Talbot wrote an article on the Dover trial for the New Yorker a couple of weeks back.
The article's not online yet (too bad because it's great) but a Q&A with Talbot it. Here's an
excerpt:


Q: Some of the board members who voted in favor of mandating the teaching of intelligent
design in Dover admitted to having no definition of what, exactly, it is. Did you get a sense
of why they voted the way they did? Did they view intelligent design merely as a lesson in
critical thinking or did they believe in it as a theory?


A: I would say there was a certain amount of, to put it delicately, disingenuousness in how
they presented these arguments in court. Several of the board members said they thought they
were promoting good pedagogy, critical thinking, the chance to learn about another theory, and
so on. But at the board meetings, one of the members had said, for example, Two thousand years
ago, someone died on a cross. Cant someone take a stand for Him? and This country wasnt
founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity, and our
students should be taught as such. There was evidence presented that they had started off
wanting to teach creationism, before they latched on to intelligent design. And, as you say,
they didnt seem to have a particularly sophisticated understandingor, in some cases, an
understanding at allof intelligent design.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051205on_onlineonly01


-S.
NP: 'Army of Me', Bjork

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 2:49:55 AM12/8/05
to

and another installment of 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them': a nice
essay outlining the links between neoconservatism and the
anti-evolution campaign.

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml


Chet

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 3:51:31 AM12/8/05
to

Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2005, 7:49am (PST+8) From:
ssu...@panix.com (Steven Sullivan)
---

UFOs are real! I need to show you all the links that will convince
you!! Time is running out. I.D. has to be taught, so you and the other
schoolboys will be prepared for what's to come!! Such a pure delight!
The coming of outerspace!! ....Just as Jon foretold!

Stephen Bruun

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 7:56:26 AM12/8/05
to
"Peter" <pe...@mindwell.net> wrote in message
news:8g2fp1157ua1sds3r...@4ax.com...

> Who said it had "incredible order"? The universe is a seriously
> chaotic place, and with the reality of entropy is becoming more
> disordered every day.

I think the point is that there is *regularity* in the universe - the same
laws of physics etc. seem to apply everywhere, for instance. One could, at
this point, be curmudgeonly and point out that an "ordered" universe with
fixed laws seems to be on autopilot - whereas a universe under the direct
control of a conscious intelligence would show a good deal more
arbitrariness and irregularity because events in such a universe would be
governed not by unchanging, predictable principles, but by the unpredictable
whims of the intelligent agent.

--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING


Teakbois

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 8:39:45 AM12/8/05
to

Stephen Bruun wrote:
> I think the point is that there is *regularity* in the universe -

And when there is not, at least science can show us the way to a nice
big 'ol glass of prune juice!

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 12:20:10 PM12/8/05
to
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> writes in message
news:dn7njm$q9g$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> for the mind-brain problem. In: Pylkkänen P , VadÊn T , editors.

Dimensions of Conscious Experience. Amsterdam: John
> Benjamins Publishing Company. p 73-99.
> 7 Watkins J. 1995. Popper and Darwinism. In: O'Hear A , editor. Karl
Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge:
> Cambridge University Press. p 191-206.
> 8 Lindahl BIB, Ã.rhem P. 1994. Mind as a force field: comments on a new
> 25 Ã.rhem P, LiljenstrÃļm H, Lindahl BIB. 2003. Consciousness and
> and vicious, tooâ?"this is a study of the sociology of evolutionary
> Scott D. Weatherbee. Like it saysâ?Ļmolecular genetics, evolution,

Whew. What are you trying to do, kill me with a little "light" reading over
the holidays?

Actually, some of these titles look innerestin. Danke.

--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.


DAVID RHEAULT

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 2:55:24 PM12/8/05
to

<rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133970516.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chuck wrote:
>> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
>> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>>
>> >When it does.
>>
>> LOL, case closed ?

>
>
> I'm still having trouble with this notion of "nothing".

It's what ain't there.


gmelin

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 3:03:46 PM12/8/05
to

Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
> > truth from fiction after being well-informed.
>
> So you're ok with teaching astrology *and* astronomy? Teaching animism *and*
> physics? Let the students "decide on their own" which is real and which
> isn't? That's what you really think education is really all about?

Education is about teaching the students *how* to make such decisions.
That's why we should get ID into the clasroom and *show* the students
whether or not it's real. It's you who want to exclude it and force
the students to "decide on their own."

> > You probably think the
> > government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
> > because individuals do not know any better.
>
> No, I think the government should teach people *science* in a *science*
> class, not fantasy or religious dogma.

Science is the process of distinguishing that which is provable and
valid from that which is not; it is something the vast majority of the
population seem to lack any ability to do. Sadly, there are people
who, while decrying the number of people who believe invalid things,
nevertheless resist any attempt to use the educational process to
counter that.

> > -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> > matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> > purpose for it's being?
>

> *Evolution*

Oops! Better scale it back, Toddster. In no way does evolution
address those issues. Nor does it need to. Your knee-jerk support for
evolution seems to have suppressed your understanding of what it
actually is.

> > Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
> > in the academic community.
>
> And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
> the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...

If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .

gmelin

Chris Jemmett

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 4:00:05 PM12/8/05
to

gmelin wrote:

> Todd Mitchell wrote:

> > And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
> > the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...

> If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .

As in at least one other thread, yours is the only argument that comes
close to giving a good reason to put I.D. into a science class. Still,
I really think that it belongs in another subject. This one might be an
exception but I can't see opeing the door to teaching faith based ideas
in any science classes, even if only to show how scientifically
groundless they are. How long until the next completely unscientific
agenda worms its way into a science class using I.D. as a precident? We
could end up with a generation of graduates who know what is not
science but who have had almost no time to learn any real science
because they had to sit in class and listen to ridiculous a.m.y. style
arguments about god and stuff all day, every day.
I.D. is a really bad idea looking for a wedge. I suspect science
teachers already have enough distractions and off topic asides to deal
with without this one.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 4:27:39 PM12/8/05
to
Chris Jemmett <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote:

> gmelin wrote:

> > Todd Mitchell wrote:

"Intelligent design" isn't generally introduced into classes that deal with the
study of the natural world for the same reason that every statement
of fact by a science, history, literature, math etc teacher isn't
followed by 'but then again, you might just be a brain in a jar somewhere
and this could all be an illusion'.

Even though that is true.

There are, in fact, some teachers who now talk about ID in order to
show why it's crap. But that's PURELY because of the political brouhaha
that the IDeologues have fomented (which has led to kids going home
telling their parents that 'evolution is a lie')...NOT because it has any
scientific traction.

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 4:46:14 PM12/8/05
to
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> writes in message
news:dna8gb$bnb$1...@reader2.panix.com...

And besides, if students want to hear about I.D. *not* being able to produce
anything meeting the definition of science, they can find out the way I
posted: in the New York Times, or the news or (fill in the blank). Where
they *don't* need to be "taught" that I.D. is bullshit is in the *science*
classroom.

Todd Mitchell

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 4:48:46 PM12/8/05
to
"gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> writes in message
news:1134072226....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > > -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> > > matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> > > purpose for it's being?
> >
> > *Evolution*
>
> Oops! Better scale it back, Toddster. In no way does evolution
> address those issues. Nor does it need to. Your knee-jerk support for
> evolution seems to have suppressed your understanding of what it
> actually is.

Mabye you should peruse the reading list Steve posted earlier. Your "knee
jerk support" for I.D. has "suppressed your understanding" for what
evolution actually is.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 7:15:46 PM12/8/05
to