Letter to the Editor: The truth of ID is self-evident
Jason Spaceman
--------------------------------------------------------
Feb 11, 2006 — In the founding documents of our republic, our
forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
proof.
While I would not dispute that evolutionary changes occur in animal
life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
anything that becomes a human). To most Christians, the essential fact
of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
part of our lineage.
In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
TOM SKEHAN
DOVER TOWNSHIP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
J. Spaceman
Richard Forrest
Jason Spaceman wrote:
<snipped>
>
> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
electricity as he spins in this grave.
The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
knowledge that they have a practical utility.
RF
rja.ca...@excite.com
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident"
No, it was "We hold these truths to be self-evident". They believed
it, but they were wrong.
> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7.
No. The bible says three, not some immoral fraction. You can't divide
22 by 7, because 7 is a prime number. That is why it is God's number.
> To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage.
That's ridiculous. If the Adam and Eve story is only a myth then we
still are all descended from Noah and Mildred, aren't we?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
Do you think I should send a reply, or let locals take care of it?
soren....@gmail.com
> Feb 11, 2006 - In the founding documents of our republic, our
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
Self-evident to *them* maybe. Certainly not to the rest of the world. I
might add here that the US are currently keeping people, without filing
charges, in Guantanamo Bay. This is against the constitution, but still
legal because it doesn't happen in the US. So these truths are
"self-evident" only in the US? Or is it rather that these truths are
*not* self-evident, but were only known to the founding fathers because
they had tried the opposite. Because they had tried oppression, and
used logic to claim that the opposite of oppression, eg. freedom, would
be better in the long run.
> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
> proof.
Pi does not equal 22/7. It's close, but wrong. Pi cannot be expressed
as an equation, that's rather the point.
Besides, people are often able to discover things "without proof." This
is known as "extrapolation." Einstein, specifically, had lots of
previous materials too look at before he formulated his theory and his
special theory of relativity.
> While I would not dispute that evolutionary changes occur in animal
> life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
> skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
> absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
> anything that becomes a human).
Evolutionary theory never claims that felines will become canines.
Rather, it posits that felines and canines both descended from a common
ancestor that was neither feline nor canine.
>To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
> brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
> have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
> part of our lineage.
In Genesis 4:16, we are told that Cain was banished into the land of
Nod, and in 4:17, we are told he finds a wife there. This wife cannot
be descended from Adam and Eve, so according to the bible, we are *not*
a universal brotherhood of man.
According to the hypothesis of Abiogenesis,* we are all descended from
the first life created on earth. All of us. This is rather more
inclusive than the Bible.
And, speaking as one of your brothers in Christ, we still need
redemption. There are no people who do not sin. It does not matter
whether there is "original" sin, because we all invent new ones
thorughout our lives. It does not matter why you sin, only that you do.
Whether this is because of "original sin" or not, you still need
Christ's redemption.
> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>
> TOM SKEHAN
> DOVER TOWNSHIP
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Please. Einstein never spoke against evolution. Neither did Pytagoras.
Einstein did not believe in the christian God, and neither did
Pytagoras. Your sad attempt at the fallacy "appeal to authority" fails
abysmally, because neither of the two count as authorities on this
subject, and even if they did, neither of the two would consider
themself on your side of the story.
NashtOn
That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
system. Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
posted to atheism groups.
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Mike Dworetsky
news:qebru19cbrfhq27hi...@4ax.com...
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Feb 11, 2006 — In the founding documents of our republic, our
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
>
It was the rights that were self-evident universal truths, not the religious
wrapper.
Creationist reasoning: "The Declaration of Independence mentioned a Creator,
therefore Creationism is true."
> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
> proof.
In Ancient Greece, didn't they ostracise someone who tried to prove a
theorem using physical proof rather than mathematical reasoning? And 22/7
is an approximation not taught to most pupils after they understand
decimals.
Creationist reasoning: "Geometry is true, therefore Creationsim must be
true, because both involve some sort of abstract thought."
You can perhaps see where I am going with this.
>
> While I would not dispute that evolutionary changes occur in animal
> life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
> skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
> absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
> anything that becomes a human).
Creationist reasoning: "Cats do not give birth to dogs, therefore
Creationism is true."
Actually, a cat giving birth to a dog, or vice versa, would provide one of
those killer proofs that evolution is wrong.
To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage.
I don't think this is the essential basis of Christianity. I thought it had
something to do with Christ the redeemer, etc. Does this make all
Christians the product of incestuous relationships?
> If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
> brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
> have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
> part of our lineage.
No, I didn't follow that "logic" either.
> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
Creationist reasoning: "Einstein believed in some sort of creative or
guiding principle in the Universe, therefore Creationism is true."
So what did Einstein actually say?
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit
vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads
to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different
from the religiosity of someone more naive."
--Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein
Archive 42-601
"For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the
absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an
intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is
where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin
belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an
attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends
on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in
opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors."
--In: Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the
Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
A good site with Einstein quotes on related subjects:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index.html
>
> TOM SKEHAN
> DOVER TOWNSHIP
Intelligent Design isn't supposed to be about religion. Didn't you get the
memo?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
SeppoP
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
>>> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
>>> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>>
>> This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
>> If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
>> coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
>> electricity as he spins in this grave.
>>
>> The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
>> ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
>> knowledge that they have a practical utility.
>>
>> RF
>>
>
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
> to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
> system. Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
>
Pitiful...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Donalbain
NashtOn wrote:
Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
Well, all of them except for the ones that arent of course. Just like
there are no transitional fossils, except for the ones that exist.
I am begininng to become a real fan of the creationists' use of the
absolute.
VoiceOfReason
NashtOn wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> >>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> >>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
> >
> >
> > This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
> > If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
> > coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
> > electricity as he spins in this grave.
> >
> > The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
> > ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
> > knowledge that they have a practical utility.
> >
> > RF
> >
>
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
> to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
> system. Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
What is it like to have to live a lie?
Richard Forrest
NashtOn wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> >>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> >>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
> >
> >
> > This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
> > If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
> > coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
> > electricity as he spins in this grave.
> >
> > The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
> > ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
> > knowledge that they have a practical utility.
> >
> > RF
> >
>
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull
Oh? And in which of your many posts did you do that. I must have missed
it.
> and accomplishes nothing but
> to firmly establish atheism/naturalism
Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu. It may give you a
facile sense of personal gratification to insult and denigrate the
religious beliefs of these people, but it exposes you as an ignorant
bigot.
However, as I frequently state, one of my reasons for posting here is
to expose the ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and dishonesty of
creationists. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.
> by the front door of the school
> system.
So you don't think that we should teach science in schools. I'm glad
we're clear on that.
> Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
>
They aren't. This one is only posted on talk.origins.
And even if this were the case, so what?
RF
Augray
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
>>>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
>>>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>>
>>
>> This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
>> If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
>> coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
>> electricity as he spins in this grave.
>>
>> The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
>> ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
>> knowledge that they have a practical utility.
>>
>> RF
>>
>
>
>That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
>proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
>to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
>system.
Gee, I must have missed that post. Why don't you provide a link to it?
Go to http://groups.google.com/ and track it down for us. Of course,
if you can't do this, it will be quite reasonable to assume that
you're lying.
>Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
>posted to atheism groups.
Except for the ones that aren't.
Bobby D. Bryant
Civics, mathematics, biology, Einsteinology... this guy is an equal-
opportunity ignoramus.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
Like this thread...
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:28:35 -0500, it was decided that Jason Spaceman
> should write:
>
>> From the article:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
>> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
>> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
>> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
>> tools just didn't exist.
>
> How was Pythagoras involved, really? I know he was a clever dude, but I
> thought Pi (and circle mathematics) had even a much older history:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pi>
>
> But before that, didn't they use little squares, of which the area
> was well known and understood (squares *define* the measure of area,
> in a way, but I'm not a mathematician), to fill the circle to get an
> approximation of the area? When you use increasingly smaller squares
> to stuff the circle to the edge, you may even get quite a good
> measurement for practical everyday use.
>
> Then when you have a good idea of the area of the circle, and you
> know it's radius and circumference, some basic arithmetic skills and
> nothing to do on a lazy afternoon, it would surely not be rocket
> science to come up with a usable approximation/expression of
> Pi. Would it?
The writer seems to think that we obtain the value of pi by measuring
it on circles.
Ron O
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
The plain and simple fact is that if it was true that you could reason
to intelligent design, why couldn't they demonstrate that in the Dover
court case. Reality never seems to impact these people. For some
reason even when they are faced with the bare facts they can't deal
with them and have to lie to themselves about it. Were was the reason
in the Dover court case? Why couldn't the ID experts present any valid
arguments? Why did they have to resort to claiming that they could
make their science work like in science fiction? Why couldn't they
present any evidence that their "science" worked in the real world?
Why did they admit that if ID were science, that astrology would be
science? Why did the ID scam artists give up on the ID scam and go
with a replacement scam that doesn't even mention that ID exists if ID
had any "reason" in it? Why did they do this back around 1999 before
Ohio and Dover hit the fan? Why didn't they tell their supporters that
they had a "change in direction" back then? Any rube that got scammed
by ID just has to look up the "teach the controversy" replacement scam
and try and find the ID in it. The replacement scam is being
perpetrated by the same scam artists that perpetrated the ID scam, but
what is it? All it is is the old creationist obfuscation scam without
being able to tell the rubes why they are obfuscating. The new scam
just takes in on faith that the rubes will be dishonest or incompetent
enough to go with it because the rubes know why they are obfuscating.
That is just sad.
Dishonesty is just a way of life for some of these guys. They can't
seem to even ponder the possibility that they might just start doing
something honest and straight forward instead of layering another layer
of lies over the old ones. Anyone that thinks that the scam artists
are being honest just has to look at their history. First they tried
to ban the teaching of biological evolution for religious reasons.
They then tried to claim some kind of science for their religious
beliefs and demanded equal time for the misnomer "creation science."
When that failed they put another layer of deception over it and called
it ID, and tried to pretend that if they tried not to mention their
religious motives people wouldn't catch on. Now they have moved on to
"teach the controversy" that is just blowing smoke and trying to muddy
up everything without trying to mention why they are being jerks and
why they don't have anything positive to put forward. They only
mention their religious motives to the proper crowds, but who are they
really fooling? Guys like this letter writer that have to lie to
themselves to keep supporting the scams? Why should their religious
beliefs depend on scams? What is so hard about being honest and up
front about what they are doing? Why hide behind deception? This
isn't a political descision like where to put the sewage treatement
plant. This is something that reflects on their religion. The guys
they trust turn out to be scam artists, and what does that tell them?
Are they justified is scamming? Beats me how these guys justify what
they are doing. All you can see is them doing it.
Ron Okimoto
Bobby D. Bryant
> Reality never seems to impact these people.
Small wonder, given that they are in the business of reality denial.
VoiceOfReason
Alan Wostenberg
Richard Forrest wrote:
> NashtOn wrote:
> Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
> connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
> assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
> their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
> know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
> members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu.
If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
conclusion life arose by natural causes. It's a presupposition. It
would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints are
of natural origins"...
Do your friends say it's a scientiific conclusion, when they assumed
naturalism? That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
is illogical.
Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
called "naturalism" on their research? Why shouldn't they go wherever
the evidence leads?
VoiceOfReason
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > --------------------------------------------------------
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. :-)
catshark
Does his lips move when he types?
>>Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
>>posted to atheism groups.
>
>Except for the ones that aren't.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
Friar Broccoli
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I
> convincingly proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull
Well, I think you have to at least admit that it is wonderfully
useful for providing a coherent explanation for the fossil
record, including all those extinct plants and animals that we
now only see as rock images.
I never saw your convincing proof. Could you provide me
with a pointer to it, so we could discuss it in more detail?
Did you also show how creation/ID is more useful?
Also did you explain why God would prefer to use sudden
creation in place of evolution, to produce His world?
Here is a link to my last post that I hoped you would respond
to:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/130d76bbfc59049d
Note that I realize you cannot respond to all the evidence for
evolution at once. I would be quite happy to stick with
vestigials for now. If you like, I won't press you on the other
stuff until that issue has been explored to your satisfaction,
and you'd like to move on.
> and accomplishes nothing but to firmly establish
> atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school system.
> Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
Personally, I don't remember ever knowingly posting to any
atheist group. Cannot understand why anyone would even be
interested in doing so, but then I can't understand why people
watch football and baseball, so maybe I'm missing something.
In any case, how does cross-posting a message to alt.atheism
affect the truth of the content? Very few people in
talk-origins (and certainly not me) are interested in attacking
your christian beliefs. We simply believe the observational
evidence overwhelming supports evolution.
Why won't you discuss the evidence?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
noctiluca
Why don't you demonstrate for us how evidence upon which those of all
ideologies can agree (i.e. natural evidence) could conceivably lead to
non-natural phenomena.
Throw together a little thought experiment, hypothesize and flesh out
an exemplary scenario. Go beyond just lobbing that specious bit of
rhetoric and show us how it would work.
Robert
Robert
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
>>>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
>>>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>>
>>
>> This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
>> If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
>> coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
>> electricity as he spins in this grave.
>>
>> The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
>> ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
>> knowledge that they have a practical utility.
>>
>> RF
>>
>
>
>That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
>proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
>to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
>system. Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
>posted to atheism groups.
The only thing you convincingly prove is that you don't know what you
are talking about.
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
>
>
> life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
> skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
> absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
> anything that becomes a human). To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
> brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
> have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
> part of our lineage.
But ID isn't about religion. No sirree Bob. Nope, no religious aims,
motives or effect here. Not a one.
I am glad that IDers are this stupid. They STILL have no clue why they
lost in Dover, and they STILL can't go ten minutes without dragging
their religious opinions out in front of everyone.
I thank them for that.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Richard Forrest
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
>
> > Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
> > connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
> > assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
> > their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
> > know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
> > members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu.
>
> If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
> conclusion life arose by natural causes
Science investigate phenomena which can be observed and measured, and
assumes that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent way. In
simplistic terms, this measn that if I drop two bricks from the same
height they will fall to the ground in exactly the same way regardless
of when or where I do so.
When it comes to science, *all* scientists operate within this set of
assumptions. If you don't, you simply can't do science. If invisible
magic pixies sometimes interfer with my brock-dropping experiment, I
have no way of knowing what will happen when I drop the bricks. One may
fly straight up into the air if one of the pixies has a whim to
intervene. One can attach the label of "naturalism" to this assumption,
but that is irrelevant. It's a way of investigating the world shared by
ALL scientists in their research, because if you don't proceed from
this assumption, there is no point in any research.
>. It's a presupposition. It
> would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints are
> of natural origins"...
>
> Do your friends say it's a scientiific conclusion, when they assumed
> naturalism?
"Naturalism" is the premise which allows us to do science. Without that
premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
look for a naturalistic cause. If you get the explanation that gremlins
are interfering with the brakes, rather than an investigation of your
breaking system, you won't use that mechanic again.
> That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> is illogical.
>
It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
investigating anything.
> Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
> called "naturalism" on their research?
It's what's called science. They are scientists. This set of
assumptions has demonstrated it's pragmatic value for centuries. If it
were not for science, we wouldn't be engaged in this dialogue.
> Why shouldn't they go wherever
> the evidence leads?
What evidence? I've yet to see any evidence offered by any creationist
source in support of their assertions. If you know of any, please show
us where it can be found. All I have ever come across is facile and
igorant attempts to "disprove" evolution, and wild and unfounded
assertions to promote creationist scenarios. Incidentally. ID fall
squarely into the creationist camp in this respect.
RF
CreateThis
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:55:50 +0000, it was decided that NashtOn should
> write:
>
>
>
>>That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
>>proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull
>
>
>
> It's true though that their crap is quite useless, except to fertilize
> your garden.
And to hold his ears apart.
CT
rja.ca...@excite.com
nmp wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:28:35 -0500, it was decided that Jason Spaceman
> should write:
>
> > From the article:
>
> [snip]
>
> > yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> > radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> > way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> > tools just didn't exist.
>
> thought Pi (and circle mathematics) had even a much older history:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pi>
It seems to be wrong. The Pythagorean school was shocked to discover
irrational numbers. But pi was proved irrational in the 18th century
AD.
Elmer
> (snip)
> Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
> called "naturalism" on their research? Why shouldn't they go wherever
> the evidence leads?
Can you cite *any* extent evidence that is other than natural???
rja.ca...@excite.com
nmp wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:14:32 -0800, it was decided that
> rja.ca...@excite.com should write:
>
>
> >> Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
> >
>
> I think if you feel like writing up a good reply, you should give it a
> shot. Can't hurt.
Submitted -
In a letter dated Feb 11 2006, Tom Skehan makes some mistaken claims in
support of "Intelligent Design".
Where the founding documents of the republic refer to the individual
rights of men, they do not say "these truths are self-evident", as Tom
says. They say "We hold these truths to be self-evident". In fact
they are not truths, but a hypothesis, and a doubtful one. For
instance, clearly all men are not created equal. Those who, like
Governor Schwarzenegger, are not created as Americans are not entitled
to become President.
It is ridiculous to say that Pythagoras discovered the area of a
circle. It was known to ancient Egyptians before the Greeks; also, the
circumference of a circle is stated in the bible. There also is no
such number as 22/7. The numerator of a fraction can only be a smaller
number, and furthermore 7 is a prime, so it does not divide.
Finally Tom asserts that if humans are not all descended from Adam and
Eve then we do not have common parentage. He foolishly forgets that we
nevertheless must be all descended from Noah and Mildred.
---
I notice there are several other letters in YDR that t.o could engage
with ("Evolution is atheism", so did we get this one as a
representative sample? Would a sustained campaign be appropriate? Are
out-of-state letters accepted? (I'm in Scotland!) /Do/ local readers
have it covered? Do they take alternate weeks?
I also note that NashtOn's triumph at "proving" evolution "as useless
as a bull" implies ignorance as to where (1) beef and (2) cows come
from, or else an unconventionally and un-bIblically dismissive attitude
to these things. Or was it a different kind of bull, such as a letter
from the Pope?
Leonard Evens
> From the article:
> Feb 11, 2006 — In the founding documents of our republic, our
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
>
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7.
This article is silly for numerous reasons pointed out by others. But
it should be noted in passing that Pythagoras probably didn't know much
about the area of a circle, although he and his school contributed
importantly to the early development of geometry. The Pythagoreans
already had trouble with the square root of two since it is an
irrational number. Pi is what mathematicians call a transcendental
number---it is not a rational number like 22/7, nor even a root of a
polynomial equation with rational coefficients like the square root of
two. The Pythagoreans would have had even more trouble with Pi. The
source of the Pythagoreans problems with irrational numbers was their
mystical belief that everything was based on whole numbers or at worst
ratios of whole numbers. They were the original numerologists.
I believe that a complete understanding of the area of a circle awaited
Archimedes.
> During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist.
> Now that they do exist, we know that his
> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
> proof.
The formula Pi R squared, applies not to physical circles but to
circles in Euclidena geometry, which the anceints from Euclid on
understood as an axiomatic system. The derivation of the formula was
based on reasoning from the principles, and didn't depend for
verification on any measurements. Of course, the ancients thought that
Euclidean geometry described the geometry of real objects, and it does
to a high degree of precision in our immediate local environment. But
since einstein, we know that it doesn't describe the geometry of space
exactly in the vicinity of massive objects. This doesn't make much
difference in most practical applications on Earth, but it is a large
enough effect to affect the accuracy of GPS locators. In any case,
Archimedes reasoning was as valid at the time as it is today, and still
applies to circles in Euclidean geometry. No physical proof is
necessary. Indeed physical evidence today shows us that the formula is
not quite correct when applied to circles in the actual universe.
Einstein's ideas were based in part on known physical measurments, but
also involved clearing up apparent inconsistencies in existing physical
theories. He also was quite imaginative in applying new mathematical
ideas to physics. But his theories were verified by observations in
fairly short time, and with the passage of more time, more and more
experiments have been done which verify his basic theories. Had that
not been the case, his theories would have fallen into disuse and
considered a minor episode in the history of physics. The history of
science is full of examples of daring innovative theories, achieved by
pure reasoning, which were not consistent with observation, and which
were abandoned.
>
> While I would not dispute that evolutionary changes occur in animal
> life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
> skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
> absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
> anything that becomes a human). To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
> brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
> have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
> part of our lineage.
>
> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
The history described here would more likely lead to the idea that the
religious principles that lead to intelligent design would apply to
worlds to which those principles applied. But unless there is evidence
that this is the world we actually live in, then one can't conclude that
the principles are true. In point of fact, this whole enterprise is
based on very poor analogies, so one can't really claim anything at all
about intelligent design from the examples of Pythagoras (actually
Archimedes) and einstein.
>
> TOM SKEHAN
> DOVER TOWNSHIP
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
>
Ash
> Oh Lord this post is so wrong it almost hurts.
>
>> Feb 11, 2006 - In the founding documents of our republic, our
>> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
>> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
>> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
>> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
>> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
>
> might add here that the US are currently keeping people, without filing
> charges, in Guantanamo Bay. This is against the constitution, but still
> legal because it doesn't happen in the US. So these truths are
> "self-evident" only in the US? Or is it rather that these truths are
> *not* self-evident, but were only known to the founding fathers because
> they had tried the opposite. Because they had tried oppression, and
> used logic to claim that the opposite of oppression, eg. freedom, would
> be better in the long run.
>
>> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
>> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
>> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
>> tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
>> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
>> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
>> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
>> proof.
>
> as an equation, that's rather the point.
>
Well, not as a fraction, there are equations that express Pi I believe
explainer
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
It was the Declaration of Independence, a politically correct document
written to encourage the uncertain to join the cause of independence
from England. It is not a religious document, certainly not a
Christian one, as most of our founding fathers were Deists. Read it at
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Please read the opening carefully. I quote,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Notice there is no mention of the creator, only Nature and Nature's
God. I would not call those references religious, especially in light
of the disregard Christianity has for Nature. The Creator reference
comes in the next section and must refer to "Nature and Nature's God".
Call this a religious reference if you want. It doesn't persuade me
that our founders were anything other than for equality of all,
religious or not.
<snip the rest>
Arguments built on false premises are best left to biodegrade into
compost of irrationality.
All the best, Gordon Hill
CreateThis
> ... Reality never seems to impact these people.
By Design.
CT
Josh M.
"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:WojHf.28182$VV4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
>>>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>>
>>
>> If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
>> coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
>> electricity as he spins in this grave.
>>
>> The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
>> ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
>> knowledge that they have a practical utility.
>>
>> RF
>>
>
>
> to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
> system.
And where is this proof? Shouting "evolution is useless" repeatedly doesn't
make it true, nor does it make for a compelling argument. That's just about
all I've seen you say.
> Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
I've also seen t.o. posts crossposted to a mormon newsgroup, various
christian groups, and a creationist newsgroup. What's your point?
> --
> Nicolas
>
> "The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
> the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
> that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
> about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
> product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
> selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
> and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
> purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
> these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
> The Church Of Darwin
>
Frank J
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Feb 11, 2006 - In the founding documents of our republic, our
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
>
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
> proof.
>
> life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
> skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
> absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
> anything that becomes a human).
Well that sentence shows that Skehan is either completely clueless
about evolution, or pretends to be in order to mislead others.
> To most Christians, the essential fact
> of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
> Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage.
Chez Watt? Has this guy just realized that he said simply does not
follow. And would not necessarily follow even if there were evidence of
Adam and Eve. Maybe "most Christians" are similarly confused, but
nearly all science-literate Christians are not.
> We are not all
> brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
> have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
> part of our lineage.
I know what you are all going to say. It's his "blind faith" that makes
him accept Adam & Eve, original sin, and Christ's redemption with no
evidence, yet he can't accept evolution with multiple lines of
independent evidence. But if these people can write, they must have
some inkling that they are invoking a double standard. Do they ever
talk to science-literate Christians? Or is this a case of what I
alluded to above - just *act* mind-numbingly clueless because the
intended audience will not look past the feel-good sound bites?
>
> In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
And Einstein would probably tell him that his concept of science is
flawed, and that the ID *strategy* promotes such a flawed concept.
Joe Cummings
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Alan,
A few weeks ago, I told you that science regards itself as not
competent to examine the supernatural.
You didn't reply to my posting, but now you're asking the same
question again.
Some creationists like Hovind and Gish seem to make a living
by making statements that are refuted, ignoring the refutations and
repeating the same statements.
Am I to assume that you're following in their footsteps? It
certainly isn't honest discussion, is it?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
rja.ca...@excite.com
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:59:17 -0800, it was decided that
> rja.ca...@excite.com should write:
>
> >
> > nmp wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:14:32 -0800, it was decided that
> >> rja.ca...@excite.com should write:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699
> >> >
> >> > Do you think I should send a reply, or let locals take care of it?
> >>
> >> I think if you feel like writing up a good reply, you should give it a
> >> shot. Can't hurt.
> >
> > Submitted -
> >
> > In a letter dated Feb 11 2006, Tom Skehan makes some mistaken claims in
> > support of "Intelligent Design".
> >
> > Where the founding documents of the republic refer to the individual
> > rights of men, they do not say "these truths are self-evident", as Tom
> > says. They say "We hold these truths to be self-evident". In fact
> > they are not truths, but a hypothesis, and a doubtful one. For
> > instance, clearly all men are not created equal. Those who, like
> > Governor Schwarzenegger, are not created as Americans are not entitled
> > to become President.
> >
> > It is ridiculous to say that Pythagoras discovered the area of a
> > circle. It was known to ancient Egyptians before the Greeks;
>
>
> > also, the circumference of a circle is stated in the bible.
>
>
> > There also is no such number as 22/7. The numerator of a fraction can
> > only be a smaller number, and furthermore 7 is a prime, so it does not
> > divide.
>
>
> I believe that *is* a number (and it is remarkably close to Pi as well).
Believe what you like ;-)
I'm having fun. I suspect there are people out there who don't know
math, so if I contradict them they'll have no argument! If they do
try, they are in so much trouble because my argument is nonsense. And
if they do look up pi in the bible then they're in worse trouble.
(There's this big round thing in the Temple furniture which is, I
think, ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. I figure it's oval,
but don't tell anyone.)
You think I got the Declaration of Independence right?
> > Finally Tom asserts that if humans are not all descended from Adam and
> > Eve then we do not have common parentage. He foolishly forgets that we
> > nevertheless must be all descended from Noah and Mildred.
>
> The sarcasm in that is going to fly right over their heads.
* tries to look innocent *
I'm hoping to get a double-take with "Mildred". Apparently Noah's wife
doesn't have a name. They're gonna go to the bible to prove me wrong
and they can't. (However, it seems there's a footnote, if that's what
midrash means, indicates she was called Naamah.)
rja.ca...@excite.com
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:18:30 -0600, it was decided that Leonard Evens
> should write:
>
> > The formula Pi R squared, applies not to physical circles but to
> > circles in Euclidena geometry, which the anceints from Euclid on
> > understood as an axiomatic system. The derivation of the formula was
> > based on reasoning from the principles, and didn't depend for
> > verification on any measurements. Of course, the ancients thought that
> > Euclidean geometry described the geometry of real objects, and it does
> > to a high degree of precision in our immediate local environment. But
> > since einstein, we know that it doesn't describe the geometry of space
> > exactly in the vicinity of massive objects. This doesn't make much
> > difference in most practical applications on Earth, but it is a large
> > enough effect to affect the accuracy of GPS locators. In any case,
> > Archimedes reasoning was as valid at the time as it is today, and still
> > applies to circles in Euclidean geometry. No physical proof is
> > necessary. Indeed physical evidence today shows us that the formula is
> > not quite correct when applied to circles in the actual universe.
>
> fact I rather sucked at it in high school. So what are you saying here?
> That circles "in the wild" are not always real circles? I could
> understand that. But if you say that one can have a true circle where
> nevertheless Pi*r^2 does not apply, than this is news for me.
A physical circle has an inside and an outside that are separate, for
instance by the thickness of a pencil line. Therefore Pi*r^2 does not
apply exactly.
As for non-Euclidean geometry, consider a curve one mile north of the
equator (or indeed just consider the equator) as the circumference of
the northern hemisphere. However, the surface area enclosed is not
Pi*r^2.
Or look at it this way... if the Egyptians and Babylonians put up with
a defective pi for thousands of years, then it isn't so obviously true
as that.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1139670284.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I second the nomination.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Josh Hayes
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> NashtOn wrote:
>
> Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
>> posted to atheism groups.
>
> Well, all of them except for the ones that arent of course. Just like
> there are no transitional fossils, except for the ones that exist.
> I am begininng to become a real fan of the creationists' use of the
> absolute.
>
No you're not.
-JAH
Mark Isaak
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>[...] There also is no
>such number as 22/7. The numerator of a fraction can only be a smaller
>number, and furthermore 7 is a prime, so it does not divide.
Very wrong. The numerator and denominator of a fraction can be any
size, provided the denominator is not zero. In grade school, we were
taught that numerators were smaller than denominators in "proper"
fractions, but I have learned from experience that such teaching is
hogwash. "22/7" is much easier to deal with when doing actual
calculations than the equivalent "3 and 1/7" that Mrs. Northon
insisted was the correct answer.
And yes, 7 does divide 22. It does not do so evenly, but numbers are
sometimes like that. And it does not matter that 7 is prime; 21/7
would divide evenly, and 7 is just as prime there.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Nick Roberts
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
> >>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
> >>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
> >
> >
> > This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source. If
> > we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
> > coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities
> > of electricity as he spins in this grave.
> >
> > The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile
> > and ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with
> > the knowledge that they have a practical utility.
> >
> > RF
> >
>
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved
.... to your own satisfaction, but noone else's ...
> that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but to
> firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
> system. Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
Apart from this one. Or didn't you bother to look at the "Newsgroups"
line?
Poor Nicky. Just in the few months that I've been posting to t.o. he's
decayed to nothing more than a bot who posts "The ToE is useless" to
3 or 4 random posts every week. And he's using a decrepit lawyer as his
most authoratative source on evolutionary biology.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Shane
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
>>>Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
>>>by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.
>>
>> This gives me an idea for a new and inexhaustible power source.
>> If we were to drive an axle through Einstein's body as it lies in his
>> coffin, and link to a generator, we could generate vast quantities of
>> electricity as he spins in this grave.
>>
>> The utterances of creationists would still be as irritating, facile and
>> ill-informed as ever we could at least comfort ourselves with the
>> knowledge that they have a practical utility.
>>
>> RF
>>
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull
Ahh Nicky finally admits the truth. I agree, ToE is as useless as a
bull, which means it is, in fact, very useful indeed. In many parts of
the world bulls are used as the prime movers of agrculture, pulling
plows and operating simple machinery. Bulls are also overwhelmingly used
for their part in maintaining the bovine species. A loss of bulls would
deal a severe blow to agruculture worldwide, let alone what the loss of
whales, seals, moose, walrus' etc. would do for their respective
ecosystems.
> and accomplishes nothing but
> to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school
> system.
Oh dear Nicky told a lie. Evolution is taught in schools as science, not
as atheism.
> Don't look now, but all of the posts xposted to t-o are also
> posted to atheism groups.
Sorry I did look, and you just told another lie.
Well as a Nicky post it was better than average, it did at least include
on bit of truth.
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
Zachriel
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1139670534.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>
>> Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
>> connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
>> assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
>> their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
>> know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
>> members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu.
>
> If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
> conclusion life arose by natural causes.
You are conflating two definitions of "natural", as can be seen by this
converse:
(a) natural — supernatural
(b) natural — artificial (designed)
Scientists study natural (a) phenomena, not supernatural (a) phenomena, a
area of research once called Natural Philosophy (a).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
However, scientists are more than capable of studying artifice and design
(b). We had this discussion previously, so please reexamine your previous
post to find the conflation.
Scientists study non-supernatural (a) causes. The claim is that there is
scientific evidence (a) that biology was intelligently designed (b) by some
unspecified agent (a). In fact, there is no such scientific evidence (a);
but there is substantial evidence (a) that life evolved through a process
called evolution from common ancestors (b).
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
Please, just avoid the word "natural" if it continues to confuse you.
<repeated>
> If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
> conclusion life arose by natural causes.
Scientists make very meager assumptions. If you want to really get down to
it, scientists only need to assume the reliability of memory (written or
otherwise). By comparing new observations to previous observations (1) and
to observations by other observers (2), it is possible to discover objective
(2) regularities (1) in nature (a). This inductive process is called the
scientific method.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
> It's a presupposition. It
> would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints are
> of natural origins"...
And there is your conflation writ large. All flints are non-supernatural (a)
products (b) of organisms (a) subject to scientific study. Flints are both
natural (a) and designed (b), that is, flints are non-supernatural (a) and
artificial (b).
Flints (a) are certainly subject to scientific study, and it is possible to
determine if they are the result of human design (b). But the bare assertion
of design (b) is not scientifically sufficient. Scientists will always,
always look for supporting evidence (a), such as a flint factory, fire pits,
refuse, and other artifacts (b) of the designer. Once having developed
evidence in this way, an expert can then usually tell just by looking at a
flint, but that is only because of all the other previously recorded
scientific research.
>
> Do your friends say it's a scientiific conclusion, when they assumed
> naturalism? That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> is illogical.
>
> Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
> called "naturalism" on their research?
They don't have to. However, they are not then involved in Natural
Philosopy, and should not make the claim that they are acting
scientifically.
> Why shouldn't they go wherever
> the evidence leads?
>
Of course, they should. So what is stopping you?
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Johnny Bravo
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:28:35 -0500, it was decided that Jason Spaceman
>should write:
>
>> From the article:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
>> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
>> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
>> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
>> tools just didn't exist.
>
>How was Pythagoras involved, really? I know he was a clever dude, but I
>thought Pi (and circle mathematics) had even a much older history:
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pi>
http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/clindsey/mhf4404/archimedes/archimedes.html
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>I believe that a complete understanding of the area of a circle awaited
>Archimedes.
Archimedes got close, narrowing it down to 3+10/71 < Pi < 3+1/7 but that
wasn't too bad at all for the times.
TomS
<1anuu15a4k37ah770...@4ax.com>, Johnny Bravo stated..."
I quit reading this when I looked at footnote 2, which
repeats the false "urban legend" about the Indiana legislature
and the value of pi ... with some further elaborations, that
the legislature set the value of pi=3, and that it cited the
Bible in support of that value.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Matt Silberstein
"rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com> in
<1139698539.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm hoping to get a double-take with "Mildred". Apparently Noah's wife
>doesn't have a name. They're gonna go to the bible to prove me wrong
>and they can't. (However, it seems there's a footnote, if that's what
>midrash means, indicates she was called Naamah.)
No, that is not what Midrash (or midrash, a similar but different
thing from Midrash) means. Midrash (lower case) are, very roughly,
Bible stories. They are expansions, elucidations, explanations, etc.
of the Torah. "midrash" (note the lower case) are not authoritative at
all, any one can make a midrash. "Midrash" (again note the case) is a
particular set of more or less authoritative midrash. But by
"authoritative" I don't mean on the level of the Torah at all.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-25.html
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
rja.ca...@excite.com
> "On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:07:42 GMT, in article
> <1anuu15a4k37ah770...@4ax.com>, Johnny Bravo stated..."
> >
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:43:58 +0100, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:28:35 -0500, it was decided that Jason Spaceman
> >>should write:
> >>
> >>> From the article:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> >>> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> >>> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> >>> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> >>> tools just didn't exist.
> >>
> >>How was Pythagoras involved, really? I know he was a clever dude, but I
> >>thought Pi (and circle mathematics) had even a much older history:
> >>
> >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pi>
> >
> >http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/clindsey/mhf4404/archimedes/archimedes.html
> >
>
> I quit reading this when I looked at footnote 2, which
> repeats the false "urban legend" about the Indiana legislature
> and the value of pi ... with some further elaborations, that
> the legislature set the value of pi=3, and that it cited the
> Bible in support of that value.
That's a pity. He has the legislative history of Indiana wrong, I
think (I am writing to say so, having inferred the change in his home
page address since the piece was written, and also to explain what
we're up to), but upon the technique of Archimedes, which is actually
in his field, he ought to be on the money. It's quite interesting.
What are you doing reading footnotes anyway... and surely the error is
not that Indiana "tried to" legislate a value of pi (I am reasonably
satisfied that a bill existed implying a more convenient value of pi -
or several - amongst other things, and barely escaped being passed in
all necessary stages, although enforcement would be another matter) but
that the value 3 was offered or that the authority was biblical.
Johnny Bravo
>"On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:07:42 GMT, in article
><1anuu15a4k37ah770...@4ax.com>, Johnny Bravo stated..."
>>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:43:58 +0100, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:28:35 -0500, it was decided that Jason Spaceman
>>>should write:
>>>
>>>> From the article:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
>>>> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
>>>> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
>>>> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
>>>> tools just didn't exist.
>>>
>>>How was Pythagoras involved, really? I know he was a clever dude, but I
>>>thought Pi (and circle mathematics) had even a much older history:
>>>
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pi>
>>
>>http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/clindsey/mhf4404/archimedes/archimedes.html
>>
>
> I quit reading this when I looked at footnote 2, which
>repeats the false "urban legend" about the Indiana legislature
>and the value of pi ... with some further elaborations, that
>the legislature set the value of pi=3, and that it cited the
>Bible in support of that value.
While the bit about biblical support is false, the rest of it is mostly true,
the Indiana House did unanimously pass a bill 67-0 that set the value of pi =
3.2 in 1897.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
" In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure
redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246,
introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate."
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm
"The bill itself is crammed top to bottom with 19th century mathematical jargon.
It seems likely that few members of the General Assembly understood it (many
said so during the debate). They were right not to understand. Petr Beckmann,
in his History of Pi, wrote that the bill contained "hair-raising statements
which not only contradict elementary geometry, but also appear to contradict
each other" (p. 175).
Even for the mathematical novice, though, one statement stands out. Towards the
end of the second of three sections of the bill, it says "the ratio of the
diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four." Pi is the ratio of the
circumference to the diameter of the circle, and the ratio 4 to 5/4 is 3.2. A
nice, round, wrong number."
Nick Roberts
Ash <ash.a...@virgin.net> wrote:
> soren....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Pi does not equal 22/7. It's close, but wrong. Pi cannot be
> > expressed as an equation, that's rather the point.
> >
> Well, not as a fraction, there are equations that express Pi I believe
The most beautiful equation in mathematics:
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0
Ferrous Patella
Wostenberg:
[...]
> It would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints
> are of natural origins"...
Are you implying that early flint tools arose due to supernatural
causes?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
eyelessgame
> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7. During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist.
I am reminded of nothing so forcefully as the "Chariots of the Gods!"
author's assertion that the Mayans must have had extraterrestrial help
drawing an anatomically accurate skeleton, because "X-rays weren't
invented until 1895!".
I wonder how this man would react to someone measuring for him the
value of pi, to three significant figures, using nothing but a wheel
and a piece of string.
And, um, is the author's argument really that creationism must be true
because the greeks could figure out [an approximation to] pi?
I got to the 22/7 and I wondered seriously if this was an attempt at
clever satire -- but any sufficiently moronic creationist is
indistinguishable from satire, and I think this is the former.
eyelessgame
Alan Wostenberg
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > NashtOn wrote:
> >
> > > Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
> > > connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
> > > assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
> > > their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
> > > know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
> > > members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu.
> >
> > If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
> > conclusion life arose by natural causes
>
> assumes that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent way. In
> simplistic terms, this measn that if I drop two bricks from the same
> height they will fall to the ground in exactly the same way regardless
> of when or where I do so.
>
> When it comes to science, *all* scientists operate within this set of
> assumptions. If you don't, you simply can't do science. If invisible
> magic pixies sometimes interfer with my brock-dropping experiment, I
> have no way of knowing what will happen when I drop the bricks. One may
> fly straight up into the air if one of the pixies has a whim to
> intervene. One can attach the label of "naturalism" to this assumption,
> but that is irrelevant. It's a way of investigating the world shared by
> ALL scientists in their research, because if you don't proceed from
> this assumption, there is no point in any research.
>
> >. It's a presupposition. It
> > would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints are
> > of natural origins"...
> >
> > naturalism?
>
> premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
> because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
> look for a naturalistic cause.
Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
science.
I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
reconstruct past events to explain present observations. The origin of
life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
natural".
> > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > is illogical.
> >
> It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> investigating anything.
They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge. A flint can be studied
from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
natural laws), or archeology (which need not). But they cannot call it
a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
psych...@utanet.at
Jason Spaceman schrieb:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Feb 11, 2006 - In the founding documents of our republic, our
> forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
> self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
> endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
> high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
> philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.
>
> Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
> yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
> radius squared times 22/7.
Stop press! After so many centuries, *pi was found out to be a rational
number!*
During his lifetime there was no accurate
> way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
> tools just didn't exist. Now that they do exist, we know that his
> equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
> it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
> their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
> proof.
The amount of ignorance (of mathematics, physics and the relationship
between the two) which the preceeding paragraph displays is simply
unbelievable!
Regards, HRG.
Elmer
(snip)
> As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
This is jaw droppingly funny. Take about conflating meanings. It would
be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all brake
failures are natural or supernatural."
Joe Blow
<snip>
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations.
Really? What a strange world you live in.
--
Joe
Alan Wostenberg
Joe Cummings wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2006 07:08:54 -0800, "Alan Wostenberg"
> <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Richard Forrest wrote:
> >> NashtOn wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you insist on conflating atheism and naturalism? There is no
> >> connection. Scientists - and contrary to your frequent and unfounded
> >> assertions that includes evolutionary biologist - assume naturalism in
> >> their research. This is independent of their religious convictions. I
> >> know evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians, others who are
> >> members of the jewish faith, and one who is a Hindu.
> >
> >If some scientists assume natural causes, it can't be a scientific
> >conclusion life arose by natural causes. It's a presupposition. It
> >would be like an archeologist announcing "I shall assume all flints are
> >of natural origins"...
> >
> >Do your friends say it's a scientiific conclusion, when they assumed
> >naturalism? That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> >is illogical.
> >
> >Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
> >called "naturalism" on their research? Why shouldn't they go wherever
> >the evidence leads?
> A few weeks ago, I told you that science regards itself as not
> competent to examine the supernatural.
>
> You didn't reply to my posting, but now you're asking the same
> question again.
You did say that, and I appreciate you are eager to discuss the
competency of science to discern the supernatural. I'm not tackling
that that weighty topic in this post{1}, but the lesser one of: is
science competent to discern designed from natural things? I trust you
agree when the archeologist says a flint is not natural, he is not
evoking the supernatural?
{1} To the question of whether science can detect supernatural: I
recommend you read Dembski's essay on the talking pulsar at
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html for a thought
experiment we could discuss.
neverbetter
Alan Wostenberg kirjoitti:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > "Naturalism" is the premise which allows us to do science. Without that
> > premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
> > because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
> > look for a naturalistic cause.
>
> Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
> science.
>
> I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
> car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
> failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
> find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
> natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
> somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
Unless the perpetrator was a supernatural being, such as a leprechaun
or a demon, somebody messing with car parts would qualify as a natural
cause as well. Are you using "natural" as the opposite of "caused by an
intelligent agent"?
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations. The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
Surely there isn't much demand for mechanics and forensic scientist who
proclaim: "I shall assume that some brake failures are supernatural and
suggest you try to placate the pixies to fix your brakes", historians
who write "I shall assume that wars and deaths of prominent politicians
are acts of God unless you can prove me otherwise" or forensic
scientists who tell the police "There is no proof that a human being
killed that man, coulda been a dragon or a dark angel."
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge. A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws), or archeology (which need not).
An archaeologist who says: "Yeah, an interesting flint. Might be from
the bronze age but I can't rule out that it was created by God and left
here by mistake"?
>But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
If scientists start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena,
they can just as well stop doing science altogether, because there is
no way the leprechauns can ever be rule out as the explanation. Brake
failure? Yeah, might be wear and tear, but it's the leprechauns who are
causing it. They don't like you. They're also the reason it starts to
rain when you didn't take the umbrella.
Richard Forrest
So what?
>
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations.
The basic assumptions of all sciences, regardless of which labels you
attach to them, is that the universe behaves in a consistent and
coherent manner, and that we can find out the cause of any phenomenon
by acting on that assumption.
> The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural",
Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be professional
for the mechanic to tell you that your brakes failed because pixies
interfered with the brake lines?
>so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
An evolutionary scientist has no need to announce it any more than any
other science working in any other field. It is implicit in the fact
that they are engaged in a scientific study.
>
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge.
No, I'm not able to place arbitrary restrictions. If I am doing science
of any kind I am accepting the restrictions of the scientific method.
If I don't, I'm not using science.
> A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws)
By "natural laws", you are of course referring to an extremely outdated
view of science. We may refer to Newton's Laws of motion, but we refer
to Einstein's theory of relativity. This is because by Einstein's time
science had progressed beyond the idea that its purpose was to uncover
"Laws" of nature set in place by God, and eternal and imutable. Modern
science- and be aware that Newton would not have referred to himself as
a scientist, but as a natural philosopher - operates under the
assumption that there are no ultimates, and that any theory is
provisional, and subject to change if the evidence warrants it.
Einstein's theory is a much more acurate predictor of the movements of
objects in space than Newton's laws.
>, or archeology (which need not).
So are you asserting now that an archaelogist may conclude that
invisible pixies made the flint? Or that it was placed there by God?
Perhaps you could identify a publication in an academic journal which
draws such a conclusion.
Archaeologists are restricted to natural explanations just in the same
way as are all other scientists.
> But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
If we do not assume that life originated from causes which produce
phenomena we can observe and measure, there is absolutely no point in
any research in the field. If you wish to believe that life was
miraculously created by God, fine. But don't expect science to support
such an assertion.
RF
Ken Shackleton
An artifical cause is still natural in that it is not supernatural.
When the creationists complains about science dealing only with
naturalistic causes....they do so because science does not, and cannot
consider supernatural causes.
>
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations. The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
You clearly do not understand what is within the scope of "natural".
>
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge. A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws), or archeology (which need not). But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
Well.....since we cannot investigate the supernatural....and the
assumption of natural causes to date has been extremely fruitful....and
prior assumptions of supernatural causes has never resulted in
anything....it would seem that sticking with the natural is the best
course of action.
Dave
>
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations. The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
From M-W.com:
natural
...
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not
marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> ...
...
10 a : growing without human care; ...
...
Either you live in a fascinating world where you consider it professional
behavior for a mechanic to diagnose: "Imps caused your brake failure. The
proper cure is to wash your car with chicken blood." Or you are
equivicating between the word natural as in definition 8 and that of
definition 10.
Alan Wostenberg
neverbetter wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg kirjoitti:
>
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > "Naturalism" is the premise which allows us to do science. Without that
> > > premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
> > > because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
> > > look for a naturalistic cause.
> >
> > Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
> > science.
> >
> > I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
> > car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
> > failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
> > find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
> > natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
> > somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
>
> Unless the perpetrator was a supernatural being, such as a leprechaun
> or a demon, somebody messing with car parts would qualify as a natural
> cause as well. Are you using "natural" as the opposite of "caused by an
> intelligent agent"?
Yes. As for "messing with car parts would qualify as a natural cause",
tell that to the detective, and the trial judge. Justice and entire
industries depend on the natural/intelligent distinction (insurance
fraud, forensics, SETI..). These would not be possible if we used your
definition of natural.
On the different topic of the supernatural, you wrote "If scientists
start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena, they can just
as well stop doing science altogether". That's an interesting
theological premise. Why can't a supernatural being -- especially an
Omnipotent One -- reveal Himself in scientifically respectable ways?
noctiluca
No he is not. When an archeologist says something like this he means
that the object, rather than arising through the action of
non-purposive natural law, has actually come to its current condition
through the action of purposive natural agency, i.e. human activity.
But no archeologist considers a human-made flint a *non-natural*
object. Neither does any archeologist consider human activity a
non-natural cause. In the case you submit above "natural" is merely a
shorthand distinction between purposive and non-purposive, not natural
and supernatural. This is acceptible because there is no controversy
involved in an inference of human agency. We are intimately familiar
with the evidence of such agency as well as the existence of such
agents.
However, invoking "intelligence" or "artificiality" as if these things
necessarily allow inference to non-natural agency is an extraordinarily
muddled argument. It does not establish either the existence or the
methods of supernatural agencies such that they may be summarily
invoked in the same way natural agents may be.
I urge you once again to think this business through. Your arguments
may make sense to you, but so far they don't carry any logical water.
> {1} To the question of whether science can detect supernatural: I
> recommend you read Dembski's essay on the talking pulsar at
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html for a thought
> experiment we could discuss.
Hmm. What part of that paper most impressed you? I found his attempts
to turn the idea of methodological naturalism into a worldview silly,
his assertion (upon which the entirety of his essay rests) that
empirical resources can be exhausted foolish and wholly unsupported by
evidence, and his arguments regarding problems which exceed the
computational resources of the universe presumptive and ultimately
self-defeating.
I thought this passage was interesting,
"What are the conditions for the possibility of discovering design
(i.e., supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference, divine
meddling, call it what you will) in the actual world? This question
must be answered at the outset, for if this world is the type of place
where anything even in principle that happens can be adequately
explained apart from teleology and design, then it makes no sense to
look for design in what actually happens."
Note that Dembski looks upon "design" in the natural world as being
equivalent with "supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference,
divine meddling." Doesn't this undermine much of what ID advocates,
including yourself have said about ID having nothing to do with
religion?
Note also that Dembski follows this immediately with the same sort of
misapprehension you continue to propound. That being that looking for
teleology and design in the natural world is commensurate with pursuing
non-natural agency.
However I do agree with him as his comments relate to the interface of
non-natural "design" with events in the natural world. It, indeed,
makes no sense to look for the kind of design he's talking about, an
observation left undiminished by his deficient essay.
Robert
wf...@comcast.net
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
unfortunately, the s. baptist theological seminary, where dembski
teaches, is not known as being unbiased in the area of science. one
needs to wonder what they are hiding when they push an idea.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
[other cluelessness deleted about naturalism]
> > > Do your friends say it's a scientiific conclusion, when they assumed
> > > naturalism?
> >
> > "Naturalism" is the premise which allows us to do science. Without that
> > premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
> > because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
> > look for a naturalistic cause.
>
> Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
> science.
Lets do, with a REAL brake failure court case.
> I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
> car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
> failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
> find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
> natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
> somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
Through TESTING various hypotheses.
For example:
"Situation: A truck lost its brakes at the top of a winding mountain
downgrade. Two of the three occupants escaped with minor injuries. The
brakes had received routine service one year before. Though brake
failures are common, they usually occur just after brake maintenance or
when service is long overdue."
Hmm, some things are known about brake failures and their causes.
"Immediately after the incident: Investigators came up with a variety
of theories. Initial evidence pointed to a catastrophic leak of fluid,
but TESTS [emphasis added] disproved that theory. A second idea held
that what appeared to be brake fluid was actually gear oil from a leak
elsewhere on the truck.
Complicating the investigation was the fact that except for the wheel
cylinder, the truck had been scrapped."
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations. The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
It doesn't seem that anybody is assuming anything - that is the whole
point
of TESTING.
"The only provable fact was that during the brake service the piston
inside the cylinder had been put in backwards.
The KKAI Associate entered at this point. He assembled a bench version
of a working brake system that allowed observation of the cylinder in
operation.
Findings: The bench version of the brake system showed that the
backward piston caused a slow deformation of the cylinder seal, leading
to eventual catastrophic failure.
Summary of the process:
1. Each time the brake was applied, the flat seal deformed to
accommodate the concave shape of the backward piston.
2. Eventually, the piston as a filter got clogged up.
3. With the air unable to flow easily through the piston, the seal
remained stuck in the concave shape of the piston.
4. This caused the lip of the seal to pucker inward instead of
pressing against the cylinder wall as normal.
5. With the lip away from the cylinder wall, the next brake
application resulted in a catastrophic discharge of brake fluid past
the cylinder.
In the courtroom: The KKAI Expert Witness demonstrated this phenomenon
in a videotaped re-enactment. With that, the defendant responsible for
the misassembly admitted liability and settled."
In other words, nothing was assumed. A new mechanism was postulated
when
other mechanisms were unlikely. Based on HOW this mechanism works
NATURALLY the defendant settled.
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge. A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws), or archeology (which need not). But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
What one does is EXPERIMENTS to obtain naturalistic expalanations
of phenomena. It matters not one whit whether they were initiated
by somebody loosening the brake calipers or if they shook loose -
obvious step
one is to determine if they were loose (done after the fact).
If they were loose, Then you could take data on if they could be shaken
loose,
or if loosened apurpose what kind of access is required and how long
until failure.
In other words, it is not "natural causes", but concluding natural
cause X,
because of experiments X', with results X''. Throwing out natural
cause Y,
because of experiments Y' and results Y'' which are incompatible with
the
facts.
Investigation of chemical origins of life, while tough because many of
the
expected effects are gone, is testable. Biological evolution, given
that
DNA is hereditary, preserves the history in a modified form, so we have
a lot more
effects to look at. Is that why you would rather not talk about
evolution,
so you can stay wrapped in your cocoon of denial?
How would you test that the origin of life has an unnatural cause, even
in principle?
What would you expect to see (so you could look for it), and why (X and
not ~X)?
Oparin as far back as 1924 postualed what abiogenesis would look like.
Tracy P. Hamilton
noctiluca
If you're testing the use of naturalism in science you have offered no
dichotomy here. Both causes you cite directly above are *natural.* Both
are observable, measurable, and leave evidence of their actions.
Neither infers a non-natural, non-testable agency.
It seems to me I've seen someone else attempt to correct this
misapprehension of yours in another thread. Perhaps you need to deal
with your inability to properly frame this argument before you try to
develop further propositions.
> While naturalism is a guiding principle in the empirical sciences, it
> is not so in the historical or forensic sciences in which we
> reconstruct past events to explain present observations.
Naturalism is every bit as much a guiding influence in these sciences.
> The origin of
> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> brake failures are natural", so it is unscientific for the evolutionary
> scientist to announce "I shall assume the origin of species are
> natural".
Neither of these is unprofessional, nor are they in any way capable of
leading to flawed conclusions. You have ignored the proper
correspondence to Richard's analogy and again invoked your own false
dichotomy. This is not about natural vs. artificial, it is about
natural vs. non-natural.
If ID "theorists" were merely inferring natural intelligent agency
then there would be no debate on this issue. And there would be no need
for their "science," since we already have perfectly useful disciplines
which hypothesize, measure, and test for natural purposeful agency
(e.g. forensics, archeology etc.). The fact that you use "artificial,"
or that they use "intelligence," as a deceptive placeholder for
supernatural agency doesn't change the basis upon which all of you must
approach the argument. If you want to infer a supernatural cause, you
must deal with all that this entails.
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge.
Assuming the reliability and consistency of natural evidence is less of
a restriction than it is an operational requirement. The tool (science)
doesn't function without it.
And may I assume that, seeing as you do not require this kind of
constraint from your science, you often avail yourself of medical
techniques employed by homeopaths, touch therapists, and astrologers?
> A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws), or archeology (which need not).
It most definitely does, in all cases. You really do have a fundamental
misunderstanding of this argument. Your points will continue to be
irrelevant until you think this through.
> But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
As I asked in an earlier post, please explain how science would work if
hypotheses can include non-natural causes.
Robert
Joe Cummings
18On 13 Feb 2006 11:41:47 -0800, "Alan Wostenberg"
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
One of my postings seems to have gone astray. I'll wait to
see if it turns up.
Meantime, it will be useful to clear up one of your
confusions, which I thought I'd done earlier. (18/01/06)
You continually confuse "artificial," "natural" and
"supernatural." A person who makes some artificial vanillin is using
natural methods to make it. What's difficult to understand about
that? If you think he isn't, then please show why.
Here's what I wrote on 18/01/06:
> No, it's clear that a man designing or making something is not
>"interfering xith nature," but working within nature, making use of
>natural laws.
You say you're "not tackling that weighty topic in this post."
But that is exactly what you're doing. You haven't given any reply to
my point, yet you repeat à la Gish and Hovind your undefended
position.
I have to say that this is a fairly common procedure for
creationists/IDers to take. What's your justification?
I'm going to propose a thought experiment:
I have in my attic a motley crew of supernaturals. There are
djinns, fairies, angels, celestial virgins, dryads, nymphs,devils,
demons, goblins, elves, oreads, naiads,vampires, and other
supernatural odds and sods.
Now, Alan, do you wish all of these to be the subjects of
scientific inquiry? If you do, then how do we do it? Perhaps we
should start with some taxonomy. What criteria would you use to
classify them?
Perhaps that's jumping the gun a bit; perhaps we should work
out a way of establishing their exostence. How do we do that?
Having established their existence, the classification couild
start. Do we classify them by their effects on the natural world?
Maybe some have more power than others?
I will be interested in your suggestions on how to proceed.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
VoiceOfReason
That's not what science says. It says that all evidence points to a
natural origin of species.
> > > That may not be "conflating atheism and naturalism", but it
> > > is illogical.
> > >
> > It's perfectly logical how. If you don't assume that the universe
> > behaves in a consitent and coherent manner, there's no point in
> > investigating anything.
>
> They are welcome to put whatever restrictions they want on their
> sciences, to get at a certain type of knowledge. A flint can be studied
> from the perspective of Newtonian physics (which explains in terms of
> natural laws), or archeology (which need not). But they cannot call it
> a scientific conclusion life arose by natural causes, if they began by
> assuming there *must* be a natural cause.
They don't begin with that assumption. Science only studies natural
causes. The supernatural may exist, but since science can't measure it
in any way, it's ignored.
Richard Forrest
His definiton of "natural" specifically excuded the actions of
supernatural agents such as leprechauns and demons.
Are you seriously suggesting that "justice" and industry rely on the
existence of fantasy beings?
This is seriously strange.
>
> On the different topic of the supernatural, you wrote "If scientists
> start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena, they can just
> as well stop doing science altogether". That's an interesting
> theological premise.
It isn't. It has nothing to do with theology.It is a statement about
what can be investigated using the tools of science.
> Why can't a supernatural being -- especially an
> Omnipotent One -- reveal Himself in scientifically respectable ways?
Indeed, why not? But then he'd have to manifest himself in a way which
is consistent with naturalistic processes, or else he would not be
detectable using the tools of science. Which would miss the point,
somehow.
RF
rja.ca...@excite.com
noctiluca wrote:
>
> As I asked in an earlier post, please explain how science would work if
> hypotheses can include non-natural causes.
Pmfji, I don't remember getting a really satisfactory explanation (but
maybe that's just me) of what non-natural or supernatural strictly
mean, and why any category of phenomenon should be beyond the scope of
scientific study. I would want to weigh the soul - if that can be done
without mischief. (I'm thinking of a questionable experiment that you
may have heard of.) I would want to measure the spectrum of God.
Having said that, I also think that there is a difference, perhaps not
an absolute one, between the intrinsic processes of non-living matter
and the action of life. I was going to draw the line somewhere around
human intervention, since these days we can make just about anything
happen that we like, but then I reflected on great apes using tools,
then crows doing so... I wonder if including the microbes that
consumed CO2 and excreted oxygen and changed the ancient earth's
atmosphere on the "non-natural" side is taking it further than
necessary...? ;-)
Then again, really they're different sorts of "natural".
Again, one could say that whatever happens in a laboratory is science
(except for what John and Marge got up to after the Christmas party).
If God reveals Himself there, why, well and good. If He does not,
conclusions can be drawn. It has not very often been claimed that he
has.
Joe Cummings
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
You have suggested I look at Dembski.
And it will be useful to clear up ideas as we go along.
One of his interesting claims is that there is a thing called
"scientific naturalism."
I'd like you to clarify this.
You see, for most scientists, naturalism is the methodology
which they use in their investigations. As I've said earlier,
scientists have had to forego any supernatural explanations because of
the difficulty of saying anything meaningful about the supernatural.
Here's Dembski:
"Where does the 'scientific' in scientific naturalism come in?
As a world view, scientific naturalism regards itself as continuous
with science. It therefore looks to our scientific understanding of
the world for its justification. This last point distinguishes
scientific naturalism from naturalism simpliciter. It is also this
last point that is responsible for scientific naturalism being
incomplete."
What exactly does this mean? In what context do we talk about
"scientific naturalism? as being "continuous with science?"
I think it more correct to talk about "natural philosophy", or
"natural science" than scientific naturalism., because we are then
able to talk about a systematic approach to nature.
Why do you think Dembski used this rather unusual term?
I have to say that the thought experiment with (the god who is
portrayed as a) talking pulsar is a little odd. Why have a pulsar? To
give the argument a "scientific" slant? Why not a burning bush?
In general, thought experiments do have some foundations in
the real world, but this one of Dembski's shouts aloud
'"question-begging."
I would be most grateful if you could give us some reason for
the odd use of "scientific naturalism;"
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
neverbetter
Alan Wostenberg kirjoitti:
> neverbetter wrote:
> > Alan Wostenberg kirjoitti:
> >
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > > "Naturalism" is the premise which allows us to do science. Without that
> > > > premise, science is impossible. If you take your car to a mechanic
> > > > because the brakes are not working properly, you expect him (or her) to
> > > > look for a naturalistic cause.
> > >
> > > Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
> > > science.
> > >
> > > I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
> > > car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
> > > failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
> > > find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
> > > natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
> > > somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
> >
> > Unless the perpetrator was a supernatural being, such as a leprechaun
> > or a demon, somebody messing with car parts would qualify as a natural
> > cause as well. Are you using "natural" as the opposite of "caused by an
> > intelligent agent"?
>
> Yes. As for "messing with car parts would qualify as a natural cause",
> tell that to the detective, and the trial judge. Justice and entire
> industries depend on the natural/intelligent distinction (insurance
> fraud, forensics, SETI..). These would not be possible if we used your
> definition of natural.
Let's not forget that the conversation about "natural" started in the
context of scientific naturalism. In that context it doesn't make much
sense to use the word natural as the opposite of intelligence.
Scientific naturalism doesn't exclude the study of what humans as
intelligent agents have done, humans are a part of nature and their
behaviour can be studied. Supernatural events and beings can't,
intelligent or not. Now a judge might say that someone died of natural
causes when he means that no human being murdered him, but he talks of
a different aspect of meaning for the word "natural". However, even in
the legal field, they apply a sort of legal naturalism comparable to
the way science distinguishes between natural/supernatural : it won't
wash in court if your defence attorney comes up with the explanation:
"It wasn't my client, the victim's death was caused by an invisible
vampire."
>
> On the different topic of the supernatural, you wrote "If scientists
> start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena, they can just
> as well stop doing science altogether". That's an interesting
> theological premise. Why can't a supernatural being -- especially an
> Omnipotent One -- reveal Himself in scientifically respectable ways?
An omnipotent one could do whatever he wished by definition, but
judging from the accomplishments of science so far, he hasn't up until
now and I think it may be because he doesn't want to. Why would he
subject himself to our microscopes and spectrometers?
Anyway, it's not so much a theological premise as just the way things
are in science. If we start to use supernatural things to explain stuff
there's no stopping. Supernatural things could explain *everything* and
if something explains everything it doesn't really explain anything.
You can't make predictions: who knows what an omnipotent one could
decide to do next? And our instruments aren't cut out to measure the
supernatural. So invoking supernatural explanations in science is
rather pointless.
chris.li...@gmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
>
> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
I bet cows and ranchers find fulls exceedingly useful.
NashtOn, when would you like to talk about vestigial organs?
Chris
Mark Isaak
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>[snippage]
>>
>> The origin of
>> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
>> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
>> brake failures are natural",
>
>Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be professional
>for the mechanic to tell you that your brakes failed because pixies
>interfered with the brake lines?
That would indeed be very unprofessional. Every qualified mechanic
would know that the supernatural entities which interfere with brake
lines are called gremlins.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
SRNissen
noctiluca
> noctiluca wrote:
> >
> > As I asked in an earlier post, please explain how science would work if
> > hypotheses can include non-natural causes.
>
> Pmfji,
No worries, this is t.o after all (and to be honest, all the jumping-in
is one of the things I like about it).
> I don't remember getting a really satisfactory explanation (but
> maybe that's just me) of what non-natural or supernatural strictly
> mean, and why any category of phenomenon should be beyond the scope of
> scientific study.
Well, I'm not sure there is a satisfactory explanation. We've had
several protracted discussions about it (for one, google on a thread
entitled "Science can accomodate the supernatural"), but so far there
seems to be little consensus. To my mind this is because there is
little about the concept upon which one can hang a definitional hat. It
exists only conceptually, as an antonym to a word, "natural," which
encompasses all that we can know. Doesn't leave room for much.
Some say that the word has no utility for this reason. I have come to
consider it a useful name for describing any set of personal
presuppositions which are empirically unsupported and are cognitively
insulated from falsification in the face of contravening empirical
evidence.
I don't see this as a necessarily bad thing. Some religious
individuals, for instance, maintain an internal system of tenets - one
that qualifies as belief in the supernatural - which serves to offer
them moral guidance and spiritual comfort. As long as all they require
from their supernatural phenonema is that moral and spiritual support
they can remain in touch with reality. It's the dodos who insist on
extending their internal concept of the supernatural outside of
themselves to where it comes into contradiction with the natural
universe that prompt the fan flung feces.
> I would want to weigh the soul - if that can be done
> without mischief. (I'm thinking of a questionable experiment that you
> may have heard of.) I would want to measure the spectrum of God.
Sometimes I feel similar frustrations. But usually only when the more
theologically insecure feel the need to offer their beliefs as
empirical data.
> Having said that, I also think that there is a difference, perhaps not
> an absolute one, between the intrinsic processes of non-living matter
> and the action of life. I was going to draw the line somewhere around
> human intervention, since these days we can make just about anything
> happen that we like, but then I reflected on great apes using tools,
> then crows doing so... I wonder if including the microbes that
> consumed CO2 and excreted oxygen and changed the ancient earth's
> atmosphere on the "non-natural" side is taking it further than
> necessary...? ;-)
Seems to me that it would be. I see "natural" as describing phenomena
that are empirically accessible - phenomena that we can observe and
test in some way. It really is an extraordinarily broad concept, one
that leaves little room for typical ID whining about restrictive
methodological naturalism. That is unless you make the mistake of
conflating this meaning, as does Alan Wostenberg, with the shorthand
use of "natural" as being opposed to purposive.
Such "mistakes" are instructive in their convenient application to a
flawed argument.
> Then again, really they're different sorts of "natural".
>
> Again, one could say that whatever happens in a laboratory is science
> (except for what John and Marge got up to after the Christmas party).
Depends upon whether their hypothesis is testable. Perhaps they'll find
out in nine months.
> If God reveals Himself there, why, well and good. If He does not,
> conclusions can be drawn. It has not very often been claimed that he
> has.
And on those occasions that it has been claimed, the evidence has been
found wanting.
Robert
noctiluca
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2006 12:13:54 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>
> >Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> >[snippage]
> >>
> >> The origin of
> >> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> >> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> >> brake failures are natural",
> >
> >Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be professional
> >for the mechanic to tell you that your brakes failed because pixies
> >interfered with the brake lines?
>
> That would indeed be very unprofessional. Every qualified mechanic
> would know that the supernatural entities which interfere with brake
> lines are called gremlins.
Which forces me to wonder which supernatural entities interfere with
the brake lines on Gremlins?
Friar Broccoli
noctiluca wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2006 12:13:54 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> > <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > >[snippage]
> > >>
> > >> The origin of
> > >> life is an historical science, like archeology, or forensics. As it
> > >> would be unprofessional for our mechanic to say "I shall assume all
> > >> brake failures are natural",
> > >
> > >Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be professional
> > >for the mechanic to tell you that your brakes failed because pixies
> > >interfered with the brake lines?
> >
> > That would indeed be very unprofessional. Every qualified mechanic
> > would know that the supernatural entities which interfere with brake
> > lines are called gremlins.
>
> Which forces me to wonder which supernatural entities interfere with
> the brake lines on Gremlins?
The answer to that is more fluid.
wf...@comcast.net
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>
>On the different topic of the supernatural, you wrote "If scientists
>start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena, they can just
>as well stop doing science altogether". That's an interesting
>theological premise. Why can't a supernatural being -- especially an
>Omnipotent One -- reveal Himself in scientifically respectable ways?
well, the fact is he never has. so why do you want to start now?
Alan Wostenberg
> 18On 13 Feb 2006 11:41:47 -0800, "Alan Wostenberg"
> <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
> >...I appreciate you are eager to discuss the
> >competency of science to discern the supernatural. I'm not tackling
> >that that weighty topic in this post{1}, but the lesser one of: is
> >science competent to discern designed from natural things? I trust you
> >agree when the archeologist says a flint is not natural, he is not
> >evoking the supernatural?
> >
> >
> >{1} To the question of whether science can detect supernatural: I
> >recommend you read Dembski's essay on the talking pulsar at
> >http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html for a thought
> >experiment we could discuss.
>
> One of my postings seems to have gone astray. I'll wait to
> see if it turns up.
>
> Meantime, it will be useful to clear up one of your
> confusions, which I thought I'd done earlier. (18/01/06)
>
> You continually confuse "artificial," "natural" and
> "supernatural." A person who makes some artificial vanillin is using
> natural methods to make it. What's difficult to understand about
> that? If you think he isn't, then please show why.
To begin clearing up our considerable mutual confusion, let's table the
supernatural, and limit scope to the terms "physical", "natural",
"artificial", and "intelligent".
You say a person making artificial vanillia uses natural methods to
make it.
I would say a person making artificial vanillia uses natural materials
and intelligent methods, to make it. Nobody would say the vanillia
maker is using supernatural *methods* on natural materials.
There are a cluster of terms here that keep tripping us up:
1 physical object that is natural vs physical object that is artificial
2 natural cause contrasted with intelligent cause
3 natural intelligence/methods vs supernatural inelligence/methods
Some might say a certain 1st century Jew used supernatural methods on
water to make wine, or certain physical objects like the Shroud of
Turin may be the product of supernatural activity, but do you see how
these are outside the scope of modern design theory?
When another poster here speaks of "natural intelligence", and you
speak of "natural methods", am I right in assuming you both mean the
natural vs supernatural distinction? Please understand item#3 is not
what design theory is about (that's creationism). It is about #2 and
#3.
PS: I considered your Dembski questions and enjoyed your your thought
experiment on vampires, elves, and so forth, in the attic. But I blew
my time budget on posting tonight. So if you're satisfied we've nailed
down the physical-natural-artificial-intelligent terms, we can move
into the attic.
> Here's what I wrote on 18/01/06:
>
> > No, it's clear that a man designing or making something is not
> >"interfering xith nature," but working within nature, making use of
> >natural laws.
OK.
> You say you're "not tackling that weighty topic in this post."
> But that is exactly what you're doing. You haven't given any reply to
> my point, yet you repeat à la Gish and Hovind your undefended
> position.
> I have to say that this is a fairly common procedure for
> creationists/IDers to take. What's your justification?
The topic I'm not tackling in this post is supernatural vs natural
intelligence detection. I just don't think you and I are ready for
that, because we still keep tripping over the various meanings:
1 physical object that is natural vs physical object that is artificial
2 natural cause contrasted with intelligent cause
3 natural intelligence/methods vs supernatural inelligence/methods
noctiluca
The confusion is not mutual. You are the one confused.
No one else here believes that invoking a "natural" vs. artificial
dichotomy is an argument against naturalism as used in science. We all
understood what you meant when you said this,
"Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien restriction
called "naturalism" on their research? Why shouldn't they go wherever
the evidence leads?"
Though you now apparently retreat into protestations of confusion and
miscommunication, the truth is that you began this part of this thread
with the suggestion, pasted above, that scientific explanations should
not be restricted to the natural. As with all other ID proponents who
posit this idea, you meant to suggest that scientific methodology
should not by definition exclude supernatural inference. But you have
not shown the stomach to defend this notion. You either willfully
misinterpret the argument (in offering your flawed natural vs.
artificial dichotomy) in the service of polemics, or you woefully
misunderstand the framework of the debate.
> You say a person making artificial vanillia uses natural methods to
> make it.
> I would say a person making artificial vanillia uses natural materials
> and intelligent methods, to make it. Nobody would say the vanillia
> maker is using supernatural *methods* on natural materials.
No. No one would. But someone, echoing your sentiments as stated
earlier in the thread might say - "Why should your religous friends put
this alien restriction called "naturalism" on their vanilla
production?" - a direct contradiction to the restriction you yourself
endorse directly above.
> There are a cluster of terms here that keep tripping us up:
>
> 1 physical object that is natural vs physical object that is artificial
> 2 natural cause contrasted with intelligent cause
> 3 natural intelligence/methods vs supernatural inelligence/methods
>
> Some might say a certain 1st century Jew used supernatural methods on
> water to make wine, or certain physical objects like the Shroud of
> Turin may be the product of supernatural activity, but do you see how
> these are outside the scope of modern design theory?
Of course it is well known, and directly affirmed by most ID
"theorists," that these are, at least indirectly, well within the
"scope of modern design theory" (consider Dembski's "Logos theology"
quote). They are, however, outside the scope of science. Science, as
you know, is engaged in revealing the causal agency behind natural
phenomena. Archeology strives to illuminate the methods and qualities
of the natural intelligences who designed and created natural
artifacts. Forensics hopes to help us understand the identity and
motive of natural causal agents. Were ID to follow this pattern, in
other words were ID real science, it would attempt above all to
enlighten us as to the nature and identity of the agent of "Intelligent
Design."
But of course, we're all painfully aware that ID intentionally avoids
this very real, very central aspect of scientific inquiry. ID
"theorists," as have you, engage in obfuscation and equivocation,
hoping to simply cite discorporate, unevidenced "intelligence" as a
causal agency.
> When another poster here speaks of "natural intelligence", and you
> speak of "natural methods", am I right in assuming you both mean the
> natural vs supernatural distinction? Please understand item#3 is not
> what design theory is about (that's creationism). It is about #2 and
> #3.
This is either disingenuous of ignorant. If item #3 is not what ID is
about then there is no cause for disapproval of the naturalist
methodology of science. There would be no need for Stephen Meyer to
have written long essays about the unfair demarcation criteria used by
science to exclude supernatural explanations. There would have been no
need for Dembski to complain that unless the naturalistic contraints of
scientific methodology are relaxed ID does not stand a chance to be
considered science. And there would definitely have been no need for
you to ask - "Richard, why should your religous friends put this alien
restriction called "naturalism" on their research?"
I have urged you to try to gain a better understanding of this issue.
Let me try once again. You need to decide if you believe ID is truly
scientific, with no need for religious inference. If this is so then
there is no reason for you to oppose the naturalistic methodology of
science.
On the other hand if you believe that naturalism is unfairly
restrictive of alternative explanations you need to explain how those
other explanations do not, by definition, qualify as non-, or super-,
natural. Absent that, you must explain how science could legitimately
encompass investigation of non-natural phenomena.
Stop dissembling with this business about not talking about the
supernatural. You began talking about the supernatural in your first
post in this thread when you questioned methodological naturalism. Own
it and move on.
Do you really know what it is you're arguing for, or against?
Robert
rja.ca...@excite.com
noctiluca wrote:
> rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
> > noctiluca wrote:
> > >
> > > As I asked in an earlier post, please explain how science would work if
> > > hypotheses can include non-natural causes.
> >
> > Pmfji,
>
> No worries, this is t.o after all (and to be honest, all the jumping-in
> is one of the things I like about it).
>
> > I don't remember getting a really satisfactory explanation (but
> > maybe that's just me) of what non-natural or supernatural strictly
> > mean, and why any category of phenomenon should be beyond the scope of
> > scientific study.
>
> Well, I'm not sure there is a satisfactory explanation. We've had
> several protracted discussions about it (for one, google on a thread
> entitled "Science can accomodate the supernatural"), but so far there
> seems to be little consensus. To my mind this is because there is
> little about the concept upon which one can hang a definitional hat. It
> exists only conceptually, as an antonym to a word, "natural," which
> encompasses all that we can know. Doesn't leave room for much.
>
> Some say that the word has no utility for this reason. I have come to
> consider it a useful name for describing any set of personal
> presuppositions which are empirically unsupported and are cognitively
> insulated from falsification in the face of contravening empirical
> evidence.
I've been thinking and I have a new idea. When they say "supernatural"
they mean "inexplicable".
I think that clears things up a lot. Inexplicable, independent of
known causes. For that matter, there's no basis against science taking
a crack at the inexplicable. Other than revelation, inexplicability
can only be tested by seeking an explanation, just as a scientific idea
is tested by seeking its falsification.
The word "unexplained" is more often a colloquial synonym for
"supernatural"; it doesn't imply an investment of belief that no futore
explanation is forthcoming.
That frees up "supernatural" to mean, for instance, anything physically
above the earth, as it used to do. Stars and planets are supernatural.
Nature is down here and they are up there - that's all that it means.
Clouds and birds I haven't decided about.
> I don't see this as a necessarily bad thing. Some religious
> individuals, for instance, maintain an internal system of tenets - one
> that qualifies as belief in the supernatural - which serves to offer
> them moral guidance and spiritual comfort. As long as all they require
> from their supernatural phenonema is that moral and spiritual support
> they can remain in touch with reality. It's the dodos who insist on
> extending their internal concept of the supernatural outside of
> themselves to where it comes into contradiction with the natural
> universe that prompt the fan flung feces.
Or into conflict with other people's lifestyle choices, wardrobe...
> > Having said that, I also think that there is a difference, perhaps not
> > an absolute one, between the intrinsic processes of non-living matter
> > and the action of life. I was going to draw the line somewhere around
> > human intervention, since these days we can make just about anything
> > happen that we like, but then I reflected on great apes using tools,
> > then crows doing so... I wonder if including the microbes that
> > consumed CO2 and excreted oxygen and changed the ancient earth's
> > atmosphere on the "non-natural" side is taking it further than
> > necessary...? ;-)
>
> Seems to me that it would be. I see "natural" as describing phenomena
> that are empirically accessible - phenomena that we can observe and
> test in some way. It really is an extraordinarily broad concept, one
> that leaves little room for typical ID whining about restrictive
> methodological naturalism. That is unless you make the mistake of
> conflating this meaning, as does Alan Wostenberg, with the shorthand
> use of "natural" as being opposed to purposive.
>
> Such "mistakes" are instructive in their convenient application to a
> flawed argument.
Yeah. Switching labels is kind of like find-the-lady. It arises also
with multiple interpretations of "irreducible complexity": loosely, (1)
couldn't be built piece by piece from what we see, by natural
happenstance and natural selection; (2) couldn't be built piece by
piece by using some additional pieces which have been taken away, by
etc.
Alan Wostenberg
noctiluca wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > {1} To the question of whether science can detect supernatural: I
> > recommend you read Dembski's essay on the talking pulsar at
> > http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html for a thought
> > experiment we could discuss.
>
> Hmm. What part of that paper most impressed you? I found his attempts
> to turn the idea of methodological naturalism into a worldview silly,
> his assertion (upon which the entirety of his essay rests) that
> empirical resources can be exhausted foolish and wholly unsupported by
> evidence, and his arguments regarding problems which exceed the
> computational resources of the universe presumptive and ultimately
> self-defeating.
What I found interesting in Dembski were the very things you found
foolish! In particular his demonstration that the universe has finite
computational resources, and if we could ask questions known to exceed
those resources, and get answers, we would be justified *as
scientists" in concluding a supernatural being had acted.
> I thought this passage was interesting,
>
> "What are the conditions for the possibility of discovering design
> (i.e., supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference, divine
> meddling, call it what you will) in the actual world? This question
> must be answered at the outset, for if this world is the type of place
> where anything even in principle that happens can be adequately
> explained apart from teleology and design, then it makes no sense to
> look for design in what actually happens."
>
> Note that Dembski looks upon "design" in the natural world as being
> equivalent with "supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference,
> divine meddling." Doesn't this undermine much of what ID advocates,
> including yourself have said about ID having nothing to do with
> religion?
As for Dr. Dembski's thought experiment "undermining much of what
ID advocates have to say about ID having nothing to do with
religion", I don't see it. It would be purely scientific conclusion
that the talking pulsar was supernatural (if "natural" is
understood to mean the totality of consistently interacting things,
e.g. "the universe").
An example of religous detection of the supernatural would be the
Church confirming the miracles of saints in her cannonization trials.
Here, the scientists is called as an expert witness to testify the
phenomena (usualy a healing) defies modern medicine. His is a purely
negative role. What I like about Dembski thought experiment a positive
scientific conclusion a supernatural being acted.
I just saw your other note of today, and if you lighten up on the
charges of me being confused, muddled, etc. I can find the time to
reply.
noctiluca
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>
> > > {1} To the question of whether science can detect supernatural: I
> > > recommend you read Dembski's essay on the talking pulsar at
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html for a thought
> > > experiment we could discuss.
> >
> > Hmm. What part of that paper most impressed you? I found his attempts
> > to turn the idea of methodological naturalism into a worldview silly,
> > his assertion (upon which the entirety of his essay rests) that
> > empirical resources can be exhausted foolish and wholly unsupported by
> > evidence, and his arguments regarding problems which exceed the
> > computational resources of the universe presumptive and ultimately
> > self-defeating.
>
> What I found interesting in Dembski were the very things you found
> foolish! In particular his demonstration that the universe has finite
> computational resources, and if we could ask questions known to exceed
> those resources, and get answers, we would be justified *as
> scientists" in concluding a supernatural being had acted.
More than that, and the reason this line of argumentation is
self-defeating, the very existence of a question known to exceed those
resources would, by his logic, be considered supernatural. In going to
great lengths to propose his godlike entity he has unwittingly created
an infinite universe of supernaturality, limited only by our ability to
conceive of resources one bit, or one atom, or one grain of sand
greater than the currently known resources of the universe.
> > I thought this passage was interesting,
> >
> > "What are the conditions for the possibility of discovering design
> > (i.e., supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference, divine
> > meddling, call it what you will) in the actual world? This question
> > must be answered at the outset, for if this world is the type of place
> > where anything even in principle that happens can be adequately
> > explained apart from teleology and design, then it makes no sense to
> > look for design in what actually happens."
> >
> > Note that Dembski looks upon "design" in the natural world as being
> > equivalent with "supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference,
> > divine meddling." Doesn't this undermine much of what ID advocates,
> > including yourself have said about ID having nothing to do with
> > religion?
>
> As for Dr. Dembski's thought experiment "undermining much of what
> ID advocates have to say about ID having nothing to do with
> religion", I don't see it.
I was not referring to the thought experiment. I was referring to
Dembski's words that I quoted just above. The statement in which he
equates the kind of design sought by ID advocates with "supernatural
intervention, nonmaterial interference, divine meddling" appears to
leave out in the cold any suggestions that ID is not religion.
> It would be purely scientific conclusion
> that the talking pulsar was supernatural (if "natural" is
> understood to mean the totality of consistently interacting things,
> e.g. "the universe").
The talking pulsar might be supernatural, but that would not be a
scientific conclusion. Science would note the discovery of new
unexplained phenomena. With further investigation, science would likely
end up folding into our empirical understanding of the natural universe
phenomena once thought to be supernatural. That has happened many times
in the past and will no doubt happen many more times in the future.
But that is all fairly irrelevant. The salient point is that Dembski's
talking pulsar metaphor is instructively impotent. For it to have any
value we have to be able to assume that it could be true and short of
suspending belief in the natural laws of the universe - the *very*
thing he is trying to demonstrate could happen with this story - such a
thing is far too unbelievable to accept, even for the purposes of
argument.
As with so many ID propositions, this one counts upon our casual
assumption of facts that are simply not in evidence. Perhaps this is so
often forgotten because of the obvious nature, to believers, of the
existence of those things disbelievers do not accept.
> An example of religous detection of the supernatural would be the
> Church confirming the miracles of saints in her cannonization trials.
> Here, the scientists is called as an expert witness to testify the
> phenomena (usualy a healing) defies modern medicine. His is a purely
> negative role. What I like about Dembski thought experiment a positive
> scientific conclusion a supernatural being acted.
I think what seems attractive about it is that is appears sufficiently
advanced so as to be unquestionably beyond "natural." But how do you
know this will be the case 1000, or 10,000 years into the future?
You're bumping, as many arguing your side do, into the distinction
between these epistemologies - one of which assumes the existence of
absolutes and derives understanding from these in a top-down fashion,
and the other which accumulates small bits of information and builds
understanding in a bottom-up way. The former struggles to force facts
to fit predetermined immutable truths. The latter can always
accommodate incomplete knowledge of the universe. The latter is
comfortable with saying - "it may seem like magic now, but give us some
time..."
Understand that what I am saying here is not that the supernatural
doesn't exist, just that science is operationally incapable of
confirming this.
> I just saw your other note of today, and if you lighten up on the
> charges of me being confused, muddled, etc. I can find the time to
> reply.
Reply if you wish, or don't. I am not in the habit of lightening up on
my honest assessment of an argument. If your points are silly I will
say so. I am likewise willing to accept your honest evaluation of my
arguments. Courtesy is important, but candor is indispensable if a
discussion is to get anywhere within a reasonable amount of time.
Robert
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1139858240....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Let's test your theory naturalism is the premise which allows us to do
>science.
>
>I'm an investigator who wants to know why the brakes failed to stop the
>car crash in which the owner died. If my mechanic says the brakes
>failed because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, I'll probably
>find another mechanic. I want the mechanic to tell me if it was a
>natural cause like ordinary wear and tear, or artificial, such as
>somebody loosening the calipers to trigger a crash.
What is unnatural about wear and tear or someone loosening the
calipers?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1139863280.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
You know enough to understand the notion that words have different
meanings in different contexts/domains. You have even acknowledged
this specific issue, yet you insist on playing this game. The
natural/supernatural distinction differs from the natural/artificial
distinction.
>On the different topic of the supernatural, you wrote "If scientists
>start to accept supernatural explanations for phenomena, they can just
>as well stop doing science altogether". That's an interesting
>theological premise. Why can't a supernatural being -- especially an
>Omnipotent One -- reveal Himself in scientifically respectable ways?
Sorry, but what trial judge allows discussion of supernatural
causation?
Matt Silberstein
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
<1139860987.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I think he has just explained his problems with vestigial organs. I
now feel much more sorry for him.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2006 12:03:07 -0800, in talk.origins ,
> "chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
> <1139860987.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >NashtOn wrote:
> >>
> >> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
> >> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
> >
> >
> >NashtOn, when would you like to talk about vestigial organs?
>
> I think he has just explained his problems with vestigial organs. I
> now feel much more sorry for him.
It's obvious NastOn meant "teats on a bull". The level of cognitive
dissonance it would take to say in one breath that there are no
vestigial organs, and then with the next refer to the uselessness of
nipples on male mammals, is beyond breathtaking.
Chris
wf...@comcast.net
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>
>noctiluca wrote:
>>
>> Note that Dembski looks upon "design" in the natural world as being
>> equivalent with "supernatural intervention, nonmaterial interference,
>> divine meddling." Doesn't this undermine much of what ID advocates,
>> including yourself have said about ID having nothing to do with
>> religion?
>
>As for Dr. Dembski's thought experiment "undermining much of what
>ID advocates have to say about ID having nothing to do with
>religion", I don't see it.
dembski works at the southern baptist theological seminary. he says
his goal is to christianize science...just like the pakistani
terrorist A Q Khan said his goal is to islamize science
what is it with religious fanatics? why dont they just kill each other
and leave normal people alone?
Matt Silberstein
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
<1140049817.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2006 12:03:07 -0800, in talk.origins ,
>> "chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
>> <1139860987.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >NashtOn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That's ironic, coming from an evo-cheerleader after I convincingly
>> >> proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing but
>> >
>> >I bet cows and ranchers find bulls exceedingly useful.
>> >
>> >NashtOn, when would you like to talk about vestigial organs?
>>
>> I think he has just explained his problems with vestigial organs. I
>> now feel much more sorry for him.
>
>It's obvious NastOn meant "teats on a bull". The level of cognitive
>dissonance it would take to say in one breath that there are no
>vestigial organs, and then with the next refer to the uselessness of
>nipples on male mammals, is beyond breathtaking.
I thought me meant his non-functional organs.