OT Is George Bush Drinking?
Charles Bull
Edwin Pawlowski
"Charles Bull" <char...@pleaseyou.net> wrote in message
news:3pri0sF...@individual.net...
>
>
> http://www.chler.com/198shtml
>
Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.
Charles Bull
>> http://www.chler.com/198shtml
No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.
Knotbob
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the
fight with middle eastern muslim terrorist to the middle east.
Sorry you don't approve but you can keep drinking.
Robert Smith
joey
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Dope
Chris
You are nothing more than an ignorant liberal. You actually believe such
using the source you listed?
I really feel sorry for ya.
As mentioned post something useful or bug off.
Chris
Edwin Pawlowski
"Charles Bull" <char...@pleaseyou.net> wrote in message
> No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
> he drinking again?
Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again.
With all my love,
your friend,
Ed
Charles Bull
>"Charles Bull" <char...@pleaseyou.net> wrote in message
>
>> No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
>> he drinking again?
>
>Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again.
Thank you for your understanding and no where in my posts
did I bash anyone? OK, I'll retract the Iraq war stuff. There
rumours floating around he's starting drinking again. I really
cannot see anything wrong drinking as hundred of millions
people drinks every day. I don't drink so I don't know if it's
addictive
Take care and have a good evening:-).
Robatoy
Charles Bull <char...@pleaseyou.net> wrote:
> http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking.
I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few.
But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I
heard once:
An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex.
I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was
due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox
news ? <G>
In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have
voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon.
In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody.
Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..<G>
warbler
warbler
Leon
>
>
> http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
>
If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.
Knothead
>>"Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.
Good for you, did you turn 21 on his first inaugural? Or is your drinking
problem his fault as well...
Scott
news:A1c_e.643$Y_5...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.
Leon
"Scott" <sc...@telnet.com> wrote in message
news:uXc_e.371082$_o.20361@attbi_s71...
>
> It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
> say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
> Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
> Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we
> will
> have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
> suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
> on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
> Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on
> the
> Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to
> find
> one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party
> is
> not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
> are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.
>
Getting a Democrat back in the White House is much easier thatn you think.
Take Jimmy Carter for instance. He won the presidency simply because he did
not run Republican.
Battleax
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:A1c_e.643$Y_5...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.
Charles Bull
>> news:3pri0sF...@individual.net...
>> > http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
What has Liberals got to do with this? The question is do you think he start
drinking again?
Vic Baron
"Charles Bull" <char...@pleaseyou.net> wrote in message
news:3pri0sF...@individual.net...
>
>
> http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml
>
Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be.
ba...@sme-online.com
he's earned it, with the guidance of Rove.
Maybe, in reality, your dividing people into two groups so
simplistically is not possible. It is silly. Most folks come down in
different parts of the spectrum (progressive, conservative,
reactionary) on different issues, and for you to categorize and judge
anyone makes as little sense as the converse. (Ever hear of McCarthy
and "pinko"?)
Some would conjure a different name for "the phony one."
Tom Watson
Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.
If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.
I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.
(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
idiots have the vote.)
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Charles Bull
>(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
>idiots have the vote.)
Maybe we should deprive these babbling liberal idiots their civil right
or the right to votes like we did to the black in the South? Should we
now segregate these damn liberal too, including anyone who doesn't
look like us or think like us?
Good Lord we are heading in the right direction?
Todd Fatheree
news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@teranews...
> Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
> his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
> Democrat.
>
> If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
> near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
> in a prefect position to run.
>
> I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.
It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
McCain will switch parties.
todd
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
Republican for years. :-(
Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
preserving unity. A favor which McCain did not return
>todd
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita
You better be, that's the only reason you will get a Democrat president.
;-)
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
Andrew Barss
: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
: Republican for years. :-(
He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
anti-interventionist Republican.
What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
Constitution neo-con.
And for that he should be commended.
-- Andy Barss
Mark & Juanita
<ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
>: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
>: Republican for years. :-(
>
>
>
>He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
>anti-interventionist Republican.
>
>What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
>interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
>Constitution neo-con.
>
McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
first amendment in recent times? Hardly.
>And for that he should be commended.
>
> -- Andy Barss
The one thing I will give him commendations for has been his steadfast
support for the war effort and maintaining unity with the President on this
issue.
Charlie Self
He claims to have quit around his 40th birthday. That and using
cocaine.
Not because he had any REAL problems with booze and coke, mind you, but
because he got religion, and the religion he got doesn't approve of
mind-altering drug use.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <tod...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
> >news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@teranews...
> >> Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
> >> his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
> >> Democrat.
> >>
> >> If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
> >> near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
> >> in a prefect position to run.
> >>
> >> I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.
> >
> >It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
> >McCain will switch parties.
> >
I don't know that he is yet, or ever will be willing to abandon
the Republican Party to the backsliding religious nut-jobs.
>
> Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
> Republican for years. :-(
To the extent that is true, it is true for the same reason
that Ronald Reagan gave for leaving the Democratic party.
In actuality, they didn't change that much, beyond maturation.
Their respective parties changed, leaving them rather than
vice-versa.
>
> Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
> doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
> preserving unity.
>
Meaning, I suppose that Pat Robertson realized that the recall
campaign was serving to prove exactly what McCain had said
about him and so bailed when the opportunity presented itself.
> A favor which McCain did not return
A blatant lie. McCain 'buried the hatchet' and has been a
strong Bush supporter since then.
--
FF
lgb
> >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
> >drinking is the least of his problems.
> >
>
> ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
> violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
> nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
>
>
universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.
And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called
"intelligent design".
Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group.
Or writing letters to the editor :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
Charlie Self
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
> <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
> >: Republican for years. :-(
> >
> >
> >
> >He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
> >anti-interventionist Republican.
> >
> >What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
> >interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
> >Constitution neo-con.
> >
>
>
> McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
> first amendment in recent times? Hardly.
>
McCain-Feingold reminds me of the necessity to destroy a villiage
in order to save it.
Even so, it is not as bad as denying habeas corpus in order to
preserve freedom.
But of course, McCain is not the subject of this thread.
A couple of months ago I came home from work, flipped on the tube
and discovered that George W Bush was holding a press conference.
I hadn't realized noe was scheduled. As I watched, I was impressed
that this one did not seem to be a sham, scripted in advance. He
responed to the questions, for the most part addressing the substance
of the query. When he was evasive, he was skillfully evasive. Unlike
other press conferenes, even the scripted ones, and the debates
he did not repeat the same phrases like "we were attacked" and
"it's hard work" over and over again.
I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
(or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.
A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
was sober.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
> any kind of sentience could have avoided.
You would seem to be presuming a benevolent intelligence.
Ever see _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_?
--
FF
Charlie Self
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
> but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
> in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
> when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
> anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
> (or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
> misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
> a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
> experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.
>
> A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
> was sober.
>
Or he had entered that euphoric arena of a good buzz, which I think is
more likely. It is a stage similar to what I imagine an epiphany to be,
and there is just enough alteration of the system that the brain
actually works as if it is well-oiled (pun intended) for a change. Two
more drinks/lines, and things collapse into Babble, while a drink less
brings on the aphasia you mention.
Leon
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
> any kind of sentience could have avoided.
>
With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence
on the world.
When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way
off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you
at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live
in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which
way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer.
Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had
to be created.
Robatoy
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
We have the answer, it's 42.
All we need now is the question.
WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet.
On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly
inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is
the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain
around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in
fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge.
Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing*
Charlie Self
Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
will.
Leon
>
> Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
> best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
> image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
> will.
>
What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
created in his own image started when we all began to sin.
Robatoy
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote:
> Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
> best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
> image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
> will.
...and I'm not arrogant enough to question anyone's faith.
lgb
removespa...@swbell.net says...
>
> What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
> created in his own image started when we all began to sin.
>
Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a
minute stop and think about this.
There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs
Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc..
Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of
having picked the right one is, at best, 5%. It may be zero, they may all be wrong.
That was the conclusion I came to.
But in any event, the only possible answer to how the universe began is "I don't know."
And evolutionary theory doesn't address that question at all.
P.S. Any time you'd like to jar your intelligent design belief, get a good book on the
Burgess shale fossils :-).
Mark & Juanita
>In article <lk1kj11g15nbt7u6s...@4ax.com>, nos...@hadenough.com says...
>> >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
>> >drinking is the least of his problems.
>> >
>>
>> ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
>> violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
>> nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
>>
>>
>Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
>universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.
>
I will let the absurdity of your attempt to divorce the asserted random,
non-causal origin of the universe from the asserted non-causal random
origin of life stand on its own.
>And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called
>"intelligent design".
>
>Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group.
>
>Or writing letters to the editor :-).
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fredf...@spamcop.net
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:06:37 -0700, lgb <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >In article <lk1kj11g15nbt7u6s...@4ax.com>, nos...@hadenough.com says...
> >> >Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
> >> >drinking is the least of his problems.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
> >> violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
> >> nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")
> >>
Which could mean almost anything but appears on its face to simply
be insensible
> >>
> >Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
> >universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.
Well, maybe you understand what he or she was trying to say.
>
> I will let the absurdity of your attempt to divorce the asserted random,
> non-causal origin of the universe from the asserted non-causal random
> origin of life stand on its own.
>
Maybe you think that your vague circumspection is clever.
But I'll be damned if I can see what it has to do with George W
Bush drinking.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
lgb wrote:
> In article <bTG_e.7508$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> removespa...@swbell.net says...
> >
> > What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
> > created in his own image started when we all began to sin.
> >
>
> Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a
> minute stop and think about this.
>
> There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs
> Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc..
>
> Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of
Want to hedge your bets?
Become a Buddist.
Buddism doesn't require that you give up other religions.
About thirty years ago I read that 90% of japanese were Shinto
and 80% were Buddist.
(Doug Miller may want to check on those figures...)
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Scott wrote:
> "Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:A1c_e.643$Y_5...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.
> You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
> have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
> suggest you move to Canada.
So, who do you think will be the Republic candidate for President
in 2008?
> Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
> on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
> Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
> Democrat side that the masses would support.
Biden looks promising. But let's keep in mind that in 1998, pretty
much nobody had heard of GW Bush outside of Texas, in 1990 pretty
much nobody outside of Arkansas had heard of BJ Clinton, in
1974 pretty much nobody outside of Georgia had heard of Jimmy
Carter.
>You'd be hard pressed to find
> one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
> not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
> are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.
There sure as hell isn't a long list of Republic politicians with
class either. The only one I can think of is McCain and unless
Pat Robertson dies real soon now McCain won't get enough support
from the Republics to beat Dennis Kucinich (whom I would much
rather have as President than Bush, sober or not).
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
lgb wrote: ...
>
> P.S. Any time you'd like to jar your intelligent design belief, get a good book on the
> Burgess shale fossils :-).
A sobering view, is that?
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk
> The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
> any kind of sentience could have avoided.
>
(In the material below, I am not particularly arguing that Intelligent
Design is correct - I don't know it well enough to have a clear position
on the matter. What I *am* arguing is that dismissing ID as
"anti-Scientific" is both naive and reflects a lack of understanding of
both the limits to what Science can ever know, and even moreso, a
misunderstanding of what ID claims. This is based on some cursory
reading of the IDer stuff and may well be wrong or dated in some
areas. But as a general matter, I think my overall impression of
ID is correct.)
But First, A Thought Experiment
-------------------------------
1) Assume that our senses and minds are reasonably reliable - that the science
we know today is more-or-less correct but subject to improvement.
More succinctly: We can know thing about our Universe.
2) Because of 1) we can observe two important things:
a) The Universe is bounded (in size, volume, content ...) The total
energy and matter in the universe is fixed - merely being exchanged
one for another - thank you Albert Einstein.
b) The Universe had a beginning (aka The Big Bang)
i.e., The Universe exists in a *finite* form. It is neither unbounded in size
nor unbounded in duration, nor unbounded in mass, nor unbounded in
energy.
3) <Handwaving Philosophy Mode>
a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone)
brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being
spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such
phenomena. That is, the (finite) matter and energy that populated the
Universe at the time of its birth did not just magically appear.
If you don't buy this premise, then the burden (philosophically)
lies upon you to demonstrate how something is produced spontaneously
from nothing. Well ... maybe not "demonstrate", but at least
suggest some reasonable model for how Something From Nothing
might work. Every single evidence we have today strongly
argues that Something always comes from Somewhere, not from some
magical puff of smoke.
b) Assume that the something/someone that made our Universe come into
existence it itself bounded somehow, but it merely lives outside or
above the physics that govern *our* Universe. Now apply the observation 3a)
to that thing/person that made our Universe spring into being.
That is, the fact that there is a thing/person that made our Universe
come to be, suggests that it itself has a thing/person that
made *it* come to be.
c) By the recursive application of 3b) upon 3a) we reach an *inductive*
conclusion:
The fact that *anything* exists (or appears to anyway)
suggests only a few explanations:
i) There is an ultimate authorship that transcends time, space,
matter and energy - indeed all the physics we understand.
That is, we reach (via induction) the conclusion that if
*anything* exists, it suggests a (logically) single
point of authorship that is itself "eternal" - it exists outside
the limitations of time, space, and physics.
ia) One variation of i) is that the recursion of authorship
is itself infinite. But this has the problem that it cannot
explain how the whole business got started.
ii) The Universe itself transcends time, space, and all the
rest. This is refuted pretty thoroughly by all
contemporary physics and cosmology.
iii) Nothing actually exists at all, it's all an illusion.
</Handwaving Philosophy Mode>
The central fallacy of those who would juxtapose Intelligent Design
and Science is that they attempt to address rather different questions.
Yes, the ID people are trying to "inflitrate" the world of Science,
but that's because they believe they have a Scientific case to make -
read on.
Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only address
questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have
occured since the beginning of the Universe.
Intelligent Design and other "authorship" theories attempt to grapple
with the questions of *from where*, *by whom* (if any), and, possibly,
*why*. As the handwaving logical induction above suggests, these are not
questions that science will *ever* be competent to answer, *but there is
an inductive suggestion as to what an answer would look like - at least
qualitatively*.
One can take several positions here. You might say, "How, From Where,
and Why are unimportant questions and thus not worthy of further
examination." But a lot of us, who are both trained in mathematics, the
sciences, and are otherwise thoughtful, rational people think these
questions are incredibly important and interesting. More to the
point, we're not satisfied with the limitations of what we can
know through Science alone. Even more to the point, the IDers
have an intriguing suggestion - that Science itself is broken
at the moment.
At its core, Intelligent Design is a *philosophical* critique of the
theory of knowledge that is deeply embedded in today's scientific
orthodoxy. More specifically, ID argues that the reductionist models of
contemporary Science are inadequate to *fully* account for what we
observe. They are not saying that Science is inferior to Faith (I don't
think, even though many IDers probably believe this). They are not
saying that all current Science is wrong. They are not suggesting we
discard Science as a means of understanding our Universe. They are
saying that Science, in its current incarnation, has an inadequate
system of knowledge to fully explain what we observe. (By "fully
explain", I mean "in principle", whether or not we ever actually get
around to doing so.) More specifically, they are saying that a core
modeling *method* of Science (reductionism) is the point of inadequacy.
Sidenote: This is hardly a new thing in the world of Science.
Every major breakthrough in Science has had the property
of decimating some Scientific sacred cow that preceded it.
Claiming (and demonstrating) you have a better model
is not "anti-Scientific", is is the essence of how
Science progresses.
In order to make this claim, ID proponents are offering what they
believe to be *Scientific* (not religious, not philosophical) arguments
as to why today's Scientific theory of knowlege is broken. (I note that
they also do have religious and philosophical arguments, but that's not
primarily where they've engaged the debate so far.)
Now, these Scientific claims of the IDers might be right, wrong, or not
yet testable. But, here's where it gets interesting:
If the ID people are bozos, and their "Science" is bogus, then why
doesn't the mainstream Science community offer them a chance to make
their case in peer reviewed journals and refute them trivially? (This
mostly has not happened AFAIK.) What we see instead are ad hominem
attacks on the IDers as they are dimissed as "religious nuts",
"mystics", and all the rest. In other words, if it's so dumb, it should
be trivial to decimate in open court.
The reason for this, of course, is that Science itself has an
Establishment that resists change. The idea that there *might* be a hole
in the boat of the theory of knowledge that drives Science is terrifying
to an awful lot of mainstream scientists - at least that's what it looks
like to me. Otherwise, they'd be happy to engage the IDers, disprove
their claims, and merrily go on their way.
There's no question that the majority of IDers are people of deep
religious faith. But this, in and of itself, is not grounds to
dismiss their claims of *Science*. (Bear in mind, that a good many
of the leading lights of ID are legitimate Scientists in their own
right.) They are arguing that today's reductionist models are
not good enough to discover everything we can know about the
Universe. Why not let them try and make the case.
In any case, whether the IDers are right or wrong, one thing is clear.
Go back and work your way through the thought experiment I described.
If you think about it a while, I believe you'll be led to the same
conclusion I've come to: If anything actually exists, it had to
have a starting point that is not governed by time, space, or any
of the physics known to us. Is it so utterly unreasonable to
suggest that such a starting point is itself ... "intelligent"?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charlie Self
I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it
gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions.
Morris Dovey
| Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only
| address
| questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have
| occured since the beginning of the Universe.
Hmm. You might want to think about this some more. "Perfect" science
can only deal with observations about things that have occurred during
the course of the observations. Any conclusions about unobserved
prior, unobserved concurrent, or subsequent events are at most
hypotheses.
As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the
realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's
permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic
are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which
has been observed and that which has not.
--
Morris Dovey
Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive
nowhere :-)
Jois
"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:ogR_e.5$H91....@news.uswest.net...
> Tim Daneliuk (in 2vhs03-...@eskimo.tundraware.com) said:
>
> | Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only
> | address
> | questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have
> | occured since the beginning of the Universe.
>
No need to look back to the beginning of the Universe, talk to a pregnant
woman, take a look at how foetus develops, get a video of labor and delivery
and then we can really talk about Intelligent Design.
You should find a better group for this discussion. And for goodness sake,
read up on what science is and what science is not before you join another
group.
Josie
Dave Balderstone
<mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
> As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the
> realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's
> permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic
> are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which
> has been observed and that which has not.
Have you been ttouched by his noodly appendage?
<http://www.venganza.org/>
Pirates are cool!
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
Leon
> I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it
> gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions.
>
Agreed, that is why I replied on the comment,
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world.
Intelligent design does refer to there being an intelligent creator, most
relate this to religion or faith, vs. the other theory where every thing
evolved by chance from a rock.
I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not
supportive of intelligent design.
Morris Dovey
290920050736278069%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca) said:
| Have you been ttouched by his noodly appendage?
| <http://www.venganza.org/>
|
| Pirates are cool!
I generally avoid others' noodly appendages.
And here I'd thought everything was up-to-date in Kansas City (They've
gone about as f'r as they can go!)
Pirates are probably under-appreciated on the Great Plains. Now if
Windwagon Smith were to hoist the jolly roger...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Steve Peterson
for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as
"teach the controversy."
Steven Peterson, Ph.D.
Steve #564 on the Steve's List
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:2vhs03-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
Charlie Self
Leon wrote:
>
> I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not
> supportive of intelligent design.
You got it in one.
Leon
Changing the subject.. LOL Are you still working on or thinking about doing
a Bird House Book. I am really looking forward to it.
John Emmons
unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope
realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth.
John Emmons
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1127971131.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Leon
"John Emmons" <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4TT_e.91537$qY1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> That's because Buddhism is not a religion. Never has been and never will
> be
> unless people continue to "worship" the Dalai Lama. Who,unlike the Pope
> realises that he's only a man, not God's voice on Earth.
>
> John Emmons
Exactly... the Pope is simply another elected official.
lgb
> 1) Assume that our senses and minds are reasonably reliable - that the science
> we know today is more-or-less correct but subject to improvement.
> More succinctly: We can know thing about our Universe.
>
Actually, science often confounds our senses. Do your senses tell you that your body is
almost all empty space? And my senses would never have come up with Schrodinger's (sp?)
cat :-). But I'll agree that our intelligence, such as it is, does allow us to find out
things by experimental testing of hypotheses.
> 2) Because of 1) we can observe two important things:
>
> a) The Universe is bounded (in size, volume, content ...) The total
> energy and matter in the universe is fixed - merely being exchanged
> one for another - thank you Albert Einstein.
>
Well, yes, but the theory of an infinite number of alternative parallel universes is
gaining support. See the recent (last 12 months?) article in Scientific American.
>
> 3) <Handwaving Philosophy Mode>
>
> a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone)
> brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being
> spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such
> phenomena.
Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why
I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."
BTW, intelligent design does claim that something came from nothing - a god. "It's
turtles, all the way down."
Cyrille de Brébisson
>> 3) <Handwaving Philosophy Mode>
>>
>> a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or
>> someone)
>> brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring
>> into being
>> spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such
>> phenomena.
>
> Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the
> other. That's why
> I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."
Actually, this is not true, particles/antiparticles pairs pop out in
existance out of nothing all the time. Granted, they tend to re-anhihilate
one another straight away (except when they apear on the boundary of a black
hole event horizon, stephen haukins (sp)), but this is a well kown example
of stuff being created out of nothing...
personally, I find it easier to think about atomes being created out of
nothing than a god, buth then....
cyrille
Robatoy
> Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive
> nowhere :-
You are not stringing us along now are you?
How about..mmm lemme see... one dimension (time) and..ohhh, what-the-heck nine
more dimensions? You know, something an average p-brane would understand?
WAIT!! I have said too much!
Why do some people find it difficult to understand that if a 'who' designed the
whole universe in 7 days, that same 'who' couldn't have tossed in a few
billion-year-plus old rocks just for fun? I find the face of an ostrich
hilarious enough to think that some sense of humour is at play here.
Those seashell fossils on Mt Everest are a nice touch as well.
I got it.. smack some tectonic plates together on Tuesday, sweep-up and cover
with snow on Wednesday.
I think the creationist and evolutionary views coexist nicely. One just has to
loosen up the parameters a little i.e. a day = 24000 hours? Maybe more?
Sorry if it doesn't fit the rigid interpretations of really old transcripts all
covered in monk-drool.
The biggest problem we have is that we're trying to understand things without
the required tools to do so.
Dave Balderstone
Robatoy <des...@BULLtopworks.ca> wrote:
> The biggest problem we have is that we're trying to understand things without
> the required tools to do so.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, HHGTTG
djb
fredf...@spamcop.net
John Emmons wrote:
> That's because Buddhism is not a religion...
I daresay that is highly subjective. People who are in precise
agreement as to what constitutes Buddism may readily disagree on
whether or not it is a religion depending on how they they define
'religion'.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk
>
>>3) <Handwaving Philosophy Mode>
>>
>> a) The fact that the Universe exists implies that something (or someone)
>> brought it into existence. Something that exists does not spring into being
>> spontaneously out of nothing - at least we have no example of such
>> phenomena.
>
>
> Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why
> I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."
>
Just a fine point: There is no "proof" in Science either. Science at best
can only propose more and more likely explanations for observed
phenomena. "Proof" is an idea pretty much limited to formal mathematical
logic, and then only because of the way axiom-based systems work.
At the end of the day, the acquistion of knowledge - by whatever means -
is governed by what you *assume a priori* to be a valid starting point.
That is, the axioms (presuppositions) upon which your system of
knowledge are built are never "proovable". In strictly philosophical
terms, there is no a prioi reason to prefer empiricism over navel gazing
as a source of knowledge - though there are certainly utilitarian
arguments to be made here.
charlie b
classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
might be discussed in science classes.
The old adage, never argue religion or politics with a
friend is true. And never mix religion and politics
is also true.
"By their deeds so shall you know them." wasn't talking
about religious zealots, Muslim or Christian. If you
encounter a good, decent, caring, content person living a life
worth emulating - so shall you know them - and maybe
even try and be like them.
charlie b
now if only we'd apply "what you do to the least of
mine, you do to me" more often
Tim Daneliuk
I am well aware of the methods, claims, and philosophy of science.
No need to condescend. Your tone is emblematic of the baked in
arrogance of today's Science Establishment. Anyone who questions
your orthodoxy is sneered upon. From Tycho Brache onward,
there have always been the "wise men" of each generation to refused
to accept the possibility they were wrong about something. It
took singularities of thought from Galileo, Newton, Einstein,
and all the rest to kick Science to the next level. I have no
problem with the current state of Scientific theory - it coexists
nicely with- or without Intelligent Creation. I do have a problem
with the *religious* fervor some in the Science community exhibit
when protecting their turf.
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk (in 2vhs03-...@eskimo.tundraware.com) said:
>
> | Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only
> | address
> | questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have
> | occured since the beginning of the Universe.
>
> Hmm. You might want to think about this some more. "Perfect" science
> can only deal with observations about things that have occurred during
> the course of the observations. Any conclusions about unobserved
> prior, unobserved concurrent, or subsequent events are at most
> hypotheses.
You miss my point. Even if a "perfect" Science existed, it
would be (as far was we now know) blind to anything before
the birth of the Universe. Moreover, *all* Science is hypothesis -
some more likely/testable than others. There is ultimately
no "proof" in Science at all.
>
> As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the
> realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's
Uh, no .... Cosmologists draw inferences all the time about
events that they could not possibly observe - and make claims
about said events. This is consistent with the rules by which
Science operates. It is "faith" only in the sense that *all*
knowledge systems - Scientific or not - operate from some set
of unprovable starting points.
> permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic
> are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which
> has been observed and that which has not.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive
> nowhere :-)
>
>
Tim Daneliuk
Bear in mind that there is a difference between someone who affirms
intelligent creation and someone who insists on a literal reading of the
Genesis account. You can be the former and not insist on the latter.
Tim Daneliuk
> See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
> for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
> pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
reading of the Genesis account.
> public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
> scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
or claims.
>
> read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as
> "teach the controversy."
>
> Steven Peterson, Ph.D.
> Steve #564 on the Steve's List
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fredf...@spamcop.net
Although he is elected by people who were appointed by
previous Popes.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
> Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.
IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
newsgroup. It would be off-topic.
Accepting of-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
atmosphere.
You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
Off-Topic threads?
When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
podium so much as they are disgusted.
--
FF
Robatoy
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
> Biden looks promising.
Will Neil Kinnock be his speech writer? <G>
Tim Daneliuk
> If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
> classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
> might be discussed in science classes.
It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
at least the ones who taught me.
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
>>in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...
>
>
> Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.
>
> IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
> certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
> a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
> journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
> newsgroup. It would be off-topic.
This argument is a red-herring. Science has a philosophy
of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned.
It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively).
The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the
problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so
using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then
refuted or not.
>
> Accepting of-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
> only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
> that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
> it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
> atmosphere.
The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
their respective disciplines.
>
> You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
> integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
> what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
> Off-Topic threads?
You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
competence of one group of scientists by another. There is a whole lot
of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
them treating the IDers. Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
for their Scientific claims.
>
> When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
> it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
> scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
> religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
> at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
> podium so much as they are disgusted.
Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of
outright rejection by the Science Establishment. "Mainstream Science"
rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
in the status quo. So much so that there is a well-worn saying
in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."
The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am
trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is
more in mathematics. I am troubled by a discipline that claims
to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to
circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with
an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy.
>
--
Tim Daneliuk
> "Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1127983873.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't quesiton anyone's faith if they keep it to themselves. When it
>>gets stuck in my face, I feel it's open to questions.
>>
>
>
> Agreed, that is why I replied on the comment,
>
> The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
> or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
> mankind and the world.
>
> Intelligent design does refer to there being an intelligent creator, most
> relate this to religion or faith, vs. the other theory where every thing
> evolved by chance from a rock.
This is not exactly right. *Some* Intelligent Design theories are proposed
as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory. There are however other
"intelligent design" theories (aka "authorship theories") that posit the
existence of an intelligent creator that operated *by means of evolution*.
You have to be careful to separate the discussion of "Who/What Made It
Come To Be?" (Who) from "What Are The Mechanisms By Which Things
Came To Be?" (How).
>
> I interpreted your observation of the shape that mankind is in as being not
> supportive of intelligent design.
>
>
charlie b
>
> charlie b wrote:
>
> > If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
> > classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
> > might be discussed in science classes.
>
> It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
> part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
> discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
> religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
> secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
> another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
> knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
> at least the ones who taught me.
>
I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right?
One of the arguements the ID folks present is
"this organism is extremely complex, too complex
to merely just happen by accident. therefore
it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
They overlook the billions of years of trial and
error that went into how that complexity developed.
If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't
be a need for multiple iterations of a design to
meet a specific environment/set of conditions.
But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we
(males) still don't have hair that'll last
a lifetime :), at least not me.
charlie b
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>charlie b wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
>>>classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
>>>might be discussed in science classes.
>>
>>It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
>>part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
>>discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
>>religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
>>secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
>>another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
>>knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
>>at least the ones who taught me.
>>
>
>
> I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right?
No. I am not Catholic nor do I have much patience
for the RC church on lots of different levels
(social, philosophical, political ...)
>
> One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
have a Scientific case to make to support that
conclusion. We may well never know, because
the Science Establishment today it putting huge
resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
to avoid having this debate.
> They overlook the billions of years of trial and
> error that went into how that complexity developed.
> If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't
> be a need for multiple iterations of a design to
> meet a specific environment/set of conditions.
You don't know that. It is entirely possible that
an intelligent designer incorporated evolutionary
processes into the development of the Universe.
It is possible that multiple iterations were
"created" to make the resulting system "adaptive"
so that best design wins - a sort of genetic
algorithm approach.
Even more importantly, there is still some
fair debate to be had about just how many
"iterations" there really were. Evolutionary
theory is still open to a lot of interesting
criticism even without ID or authorship ideas.
That is, criticism within the framework of today's
Science.
For example, evolution *within* a particular species,
over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from
less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms
is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in
biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not
demonstrated by direct experiment. If they
were, the discussion about Evolution would
truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
(experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
Ted Kennedy.
>
> But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we
> (males) still don't have hair that'll last
> a lifetime :), at least not me.
That's because we modern humans have the bad
manners to live long beyond the duration needed
to reproduce. A truly counter-evolutionary
behavior.
--
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>
> >>Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
> >>in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...
> >
> >
> > Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.
> >
> > IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
> > certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
> > a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
> > journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
> > newsgroup. It would be off-topic.
>
> This argument is a red-herring.
No, it is spot on.
> Science has a philosophy
> of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned.
> It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively).
> The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the
> problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so
> using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then
> refuted or not.
>
"Intelligent Design" unless it is very ill-considered misnomer,
relies on the presumption of a divine being. That is the realm
of religion, not science.
A claim to be able to demonstrate intelligent design
scientifically, without theology is obvious double speak.
>
> >
> > Accepting off-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
> > only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
> > that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
> > it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
> > atmosphere.
>
> The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
> of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
> their respective disciplines.
Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
their specific sub-branches of science?
I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.
Science has always observed aboundant phenomena that COULD be
explained by invoking some sort of intelligence making a choice,
for example between which molecules pass thorugh a membrane and
which do not.
>
> >
> > You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
> > integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
> > what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
> > Off-Topic threads?
>
> You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
> calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
> competence of one group of scientists by another.
Which has nothing to do with patio furniture.
> There is a whole lot
> of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
> community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
> them treating the IDers.
Which was my point.
> Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
> the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
> for their Scientific claims.
>
Like everyone else they have a right to express their opinions.
Also, like everyone else, they have no right to demand that anyone
in particular listen to them.
If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
is the right of those publishers or sponsors.
The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
damn thing at all for them.
No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.
> >
> > When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
> > it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
> > scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
> > religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
> > at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
> > podium so much as they are disgusted.
>
> Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of
> outright rejection by the Science Establishment.
I can think of a few exmples but interestingly, nearly all
in the field of medicine and was outright rejected, not
by scientists, but by physicians. Ask any scientist in
any branch of biology that ever contributes to medical
knowledge and he or she will assure you that doctors are
not scientists.
There are also examples of scientists rejecting the notion
that certain engineering goals could be achieved, like
building a hydrogen bomb. But those are disagreements as
to practical applicability.
The law of conservation of energy and in particular the
concept of entropy were controversial but I'd have to look
into it further beofor concluding that they were 'outright
rejected'.
So how about some examples of scientific theories, outright
rejected at first, which were ultimately accepted?
Most new scientific theories that are eventually accepted,
and indeed, many that are unltimately rejected, are immediately
accepted as _scientifically viable_ from the outset.
Examples include the evolutionary theories of Lamarck, Wallace
and Darwin, the Copernican theory of the Solar System the
Corpuscular theory of light, Special and General relativity,
the Big Bang theory, quantum theory. Not everyone in the field
accepted them from the outset but they weren't rejected as
not appropriate for publication or debate.
> "Mainstream Science"
> rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
> in the status quo.
> So much so that there is a well-worn saying
> in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."
So well worn *I* never heard it befor.
>
> The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am
> trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is
> more in mathematics.
Perhaps you are familiar with the story about the debate
on the existance of God between Diederot and Euler?
> I am troubled by a discipline that claims
> to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to
> circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with
> an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy.
>
'IDers' are plainly not the only people whose philosophy has
been excluded from the public schools or scientific journals.
Lots of people who claim to to have theories based on sound
science do not get published. (Well a few self-publish on
UseNet). The obvious difference between those and the 'IDers'
is that the former generally do not have well-funded and
political and religiously motivated sponsors.
But sometimes they do. Back in the early 1980's there was
an attempt to force a more Bibically literal brand of
Creationism into the scientific literature and the public
schools. They also relied on legal arguments but died
back after a few setbacks in the court system. Whereas
'Creatiionsim' and the oxymoronic 'Scientific Creationsim'
were ckommonly heard back then, there was not one peep
about 'Intelligent Design'. While it may be that the
origins of 'ID' go back befor then, it was not until
that set back for America's Taliban wannabes that "Intelligent
Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence.
The bottom line is that 'Intelligent Design' is a plain
english statement of the existance of a designer.
Some religious sects for not speak their name for the Divine
Being for religions I do not quite understand. But I do
understand why the "Intelligent Designer" do not speak
the name for their "Designer". It for the same reasons
that some other cults won't tell you that the beleive in
(non-divne) extraterestrial beings.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
>
> ...
>
> I am well aware of the methods, claims, and philosophy of science.
But evidently not the History.
> No need to condescend. Your tone is emblematic of the baked in
> arrogance of today's Science Establishment. Anyone who questions
> your orthodoxy is sneered upon. From Tycho Brache onward,
> there have always been the "wise men" of each generation to refused
> to accept the possibility they were wrong about something. It
> took singularities of thought from Galileo, Newton, Einstein,
> and all the rest to kick Science to the next level.
There is so much that is factually wrong with that paragraph
it is hard to decide where to start. Perhaps a more or less
chronological approach will serve.
You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the
next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the
Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is
not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that
had to be kicked and it often kicked back.
Your first example, is an exception. He kicked Science and
Science resisted and won because he was WRONG.
Tycho Brahe, in the face of religious opposition to the
Copernican model came up with his own model for the solar
system, a sort of middle ground model that pleased the
religious establishment without totally abandoning recent
progress in science. IOW, Brahe was a backslider. To
conform to established religious decrees as to what constituted
truth his model had the Earth at the center of the Solar
System, with the Sun and the Moon in orbits about it, but
then incorporated the Copernican concept by having the
remaining planets orbit the Sun.
One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
can be made to many of today's public school administrators.
A few centuries later one has to wonder if Brahe did not
construct his model as a mockery of the religious viewpoint.
If so, it appears that the clerics didn't get the joke which
probably delighted Brahe even further.
The scientific community resisted and ultimately rejected
Brahe's theory not because it was new, but because it
lacked scientific merit. Like ID, it was a contrivance
developed to incorporate what had become scientifically
undeniable into the previously established faith-based
philosphy so as to make it palatable to those who were as
poliltically powerful as they were scientifically ignorant.
OTOH, the Copernican theory, open support of which put
men in mortal danger at the hands of the religious and
political establishments, was none-the-less widely and
rapidly accepted in the scientific community because of
its scientific merit, politics notwithstanding. Copernicus
didn't need to kick anyone or anything.
(I note you didn't mention Copernicus, possibly just an oversight.)
Galileo advanced the Copernican theory through his observations
and laid the groundwork for modern physics. For this he became
the most respected scientist of his day, in the scientific
community, but was feared and loathed (e.g. "sneered at")
by the political and religious establishment which was concerned
ONLY with what they perceived to be the societal implications
of his work. The scientific merits of his work were NOT a
consideration on the part of his oppressors.
Newton, benefitted by living in a more enlighted time and country.
Newton was lauded both in the scientific community and by his
and foreign governments for his achievements. The scientific
community did NOT resist Newton's contributions because their
scientific merit was immediately clear. Newton didn't have
to kick Science, Science came clamoring to his door eager for
his work.
Einstein's story is similar to Newton's. He received his
Master's degree for the Special Theory of Relativity and
the Nobel prize for his body of work in 1905. That is
hardly 'sneering' on the part of Scientific 'orthodoxy'.
As you know, when the Nazis came to power Einstein and other
"Jewish Physicists" came under fire from politicians who
clearly had no concern for the scientific merits of their
work but found it both politically convenient to demonize
them, and easy to accomplish as their consituency had no
real understanding of or concern for the scientific merits
of their work.
Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.
None of the scientists you mentioned were "sneered at" by
Scientific Orthodoxy. None of them "Kicked Science" to the
next level in the sense of having to overcome some sort of
entrained philosophical resistance. Anybody sneering or
who needed to be kicked was either in the minority or a
nonscientist to begin with.
Two other scientists you did not mention are Darwin and
Lamarck.
During the later half of the nineteenth century the school
of evolutionary theories identified with Lamarck was a widely
accepted competitor with the theory of slow mutation and natural
selection advanced by Darwin and Wallace.
Ultimately, 'Lamarckism' though sustained several decades in
the Soviet Union because of its appeal to that totalitarian
government, died out largely because some of its predictions
proved to be false while predictions based on slow mutation and
natural selection proved to be true.
Later, genetic theory provided a theoretical mechanism by which
the inheritance of the new traits could occur, something both
theories had lacked, and later still the discovery of chromosones
and ultimately a physical, molecular basis for genes, provided
a reproducible physical basis for understanding both inheritance
and mutation.
Together those pretty much put the evolutionary theory advanced
by Darwin and Wallace on a firm material base.
There was considerable reason to be skeptical of evolutionary
theories that relied on mutation and inheritance before
underlying mechnisms for those phenomena were discovered.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. To argue against mutation
(micro or macro) and natural selection one must come up
with a reasonable hypothesis as to why those mutations
and that inheritance will not occur. And then one must test
that hypothesis.
"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty
much the evolutionary equivalent of Tycho Brahe putting the
Earth back at the center of the solar system while leaving
the planets in orbit about the sun. But with one important
exception. Brahe devised his alternative but politically
pleasing model befor the discovery of the theory of gravity
which provided the underlying mechanism for the Copernican
model. The "Intelligent Designers" came up with theirs
long after the underlying mechanisms supporting mainstream
evolutionary theory were well-understood.
"Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
intervention. No scientific theory will or even can disprove
the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>
> This is not exactly right. *Some* Intelligent Design theories are proposed
> as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory. There are however other
> "intelligent design" theories (aka "authorship theories") that posit the
> existence of an intelligent creator that operated *by means of evolution*.
Can you state a testable hypothesis that can be used to discriminate
between the operation of evolution by an intelligent creator, and
the operation of evolution without an intelligent creator?
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
>
> >
> > One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> > "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> > to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> > it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
>
> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> to avoid having this debate.
What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
astrologers and polygraphers have.
Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.
Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
in reality, flock together.
That the Soviets supported Lamarckism is not proof that
Lamarckism was wrong. But by the time it came to pass that
the Soviet Government was the ONLY supporter of Lamarckism it
was time to question either the honesty or the sanity as
well as the competence of the Larmackists of that era.
Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
someone else's!
You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.
I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe
they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious
supporters.
> Even more importantly, there is still some
> fair debate to be had about just how many
> "iterations" there really were. Evolutionary
> theory is still open to a lot of interesting
> criticism even without ID or authorship ideas.
> That is, criticism within the framework of today's
> Science.
>
Of course.
> For example, evolution *within* a particular species,
> over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from
> less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms
> is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in
> biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not
> demonstrated by direct experiment. If they
> were, the discussion about Evolution would
> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> Ted Kennedy.
And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
process to occur.
A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.
Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
by extrapolation from present day motion.
If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
on continental drift would THAT upset you?
--
FF
Robatoy
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> IOW, all the Science Establishment
> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> Ted Kennedy.
Funny stuff.
I think that's been proven. Didn't he crawl ashore at
Chappaquiddick?
Robatoy
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
Tim wrote:
> IOW, all the Science Establishment
> > has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> > (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> > a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> > Ted Kennedy.
>
> And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
> ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
> process to occur.
Call it a work in progress. The evolution hasn't quite finished with Ted
yet.
Tim Daneliuk
No, probably not. But I can offer a rational conjecture that Something
has never been demonstrated to spring forth from Nothing and this
suggests that there is an authoring "Something". (This nothwithstanding
the particle argument someone else put forth earlier in the threat. This
is a conjurer's trick - the particles in question spring forth from
something - the context of the larger universe and the physics that
govern it). Moreover, even if the mechanism *is* entirely governed by
natural selection, the open question still remains: How did the laws of
physics that ultimately enable natural selection to even operate ever
come to be?
Incidentally, I don't think you can actually propose a testable
hypothesis that demonstrates full-blown evolution. The whole evolution
theory cannon be experimentally verified. Beyond the base mechanisms of
evolution (mutation, natural selection, et al) the "Big Picture" of
evolution is arrived at by means of inferrence and induction. These are
valid methods of science, but they are not, strictly speaking, testable.
IOW, you can test the pieces, but not the whole of evolutionary theory.
In fact, honest science always says, "This is our best theory ... *so far* "
in recognition of the limits of what you can "know" by induction or
inference.
This whole discussion is difficult because it has both a philosophical/
metaphysical component and a scientific component to it. The Science
community is mute on the metaphysics (to its detriment) and most of the
"author" theories like ID and Creationism do not do a good job of
separating the portions of their positions that are metaphysics and
which are claimed science. I think there is an really important "middle"
where these two communities should be meeting and talking to develop a
common language and point of departure for the discussion.
Tim Daneliuk
Then you're not reading the IDers I have. While many/most
of them *are* Theists, their science claims do not spring
from the presumption of the Divine. Quite the opposite,
they claim that observed complexity ("observed" by *science*)
cannot be adequately explained by proesses like mutation
and natural selection. They argue that the science drives
you to the presumption of an author, not the other way around.
>
>
>>>Accepting off-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
>>>only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
>>>that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
>>>it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
>>>atmosphere.
>>
>>The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
>>of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
>>their respective disciplines.
>
>
> Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
> etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
> their specific sub-branches of science?
>
> I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
> to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
> to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.
It depends on whether you are propsing physics or metaphysics.
The IDers attempt to do both and do not separate them well,
IMHO which is at least where some of the confusion lies.
>
> Science has always observed aboundant phenomena that COULD be
> explained by invoking some sort of intelligence making a choice,
> for example between which molecules pass thorugh a membrane and
> which do not.
>
>
>>>You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
>>>integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
>>>what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
>>>Off-Topic threads?
>>
>>You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
>>calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
>>competence of one group of scientists by another.
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with patio furniture.
I was responding you *your* initial point, "You seldom see
authors calling each other names ..."
>
>
>>There is a whole lot
>>of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
>>community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
>>them treating the IDers.
>
>
> Which was my point.
>
>
>>Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
>>the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
>>for their Scientific claims.
>>
>
>
> Like everyone else they have a right to express their opinions.
> Also, like everyone else, they have no right to demand that anyone
> in particular listen to them.
>
> If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
> their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
> invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
> is the right of those publishers or sponsors.
>
> The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
> damn thing at all for them.
>
> No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
> to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
> satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.
Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment
refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly
well better be still when the IDers want their theories
taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of
the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment
want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants
them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their
ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so
as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them
or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics.
OK, "outright rejected" was an overstatement on my part.
I should have better said, "met with considerable resistance
at first because of the inertia of the prevalent scientific
orthodoxy." Better?
>
>
>
>>"Mainstream Science"
>>rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
>>in the status quo.
>>So much so that there is a well-worn saying
>>in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."
>
>
> So well worn *I* never heard it befor.
Strange, you seem well versed in matter scientific. It is
a semi-famous quote. I'll see if I can find a cite.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence.]
You prove my point. You just *can't* get through this without
going ad hominem - it diminished your argument considerably.
>
> The bottom line is that 'Intelligent Design' is a plain
> english statement of the existance of a designer.
>
> Some religious sects for not speak their name for the Divine
> Being for religions I do not quite understand. But I do
> understand why the "Intelligent Designer" do not speak
> the name for their "Designer". It for the same reasons
> that some other cults won't tell you that the beleive in
> (non-divne) extraterestrial beings.
More ad homina - not relevant or to the point.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP of interesting history of science>
> One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
> cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
> prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
> ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
> can be made to many of today's public school administrators.
A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
intertia in the science establishment IMO.
<More history snipped>
I stipulate your history is correct. I think you
are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas
met with from within the establishment science of their
day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right
(except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the
turning points of science we're discussing here didn't
just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of
the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance.
>
> Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
> new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
> political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
> faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
> purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
> scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
> to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
> present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
> Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.
This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary
Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular
culture without significant opposition for a long, long
time. The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
matters.
<SNIP>
>
> "Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
> in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
> than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty
That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.
> "Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
> constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
> intervention.
Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
*claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
in the community of scientists seem to have.
In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se
but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the
community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or
agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that
the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge
may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations.
So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science,
etc."
Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest
are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing
to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and
scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers
as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the
popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder
that a moment.
> No scientific theory will or even can disprove
> the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
> dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.
Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does.
I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of
the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always
be blind in one eye. If more scientists understood metaphysics and more
theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but
cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive
ideas. I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am
arguing for its *augmentation* . This is valid so long as everyone
involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought.
The goal is not to promote better science or better metaphysics.
The goal is to better apprehend Truth by whatever means are most
appropriate.
P.S. Oh, and for the record, some of the theologians under whom I enjoyed a
portion of my education, had the *exact same* bunker mentality,
unwillingness to engage with their challengers, slavish adherence to the
methods they best understood, and all the other stuff that I've suggested
are bad practice on the part of the science establishment. It
seems that nothing is more 'sacred' than what you already believe ...
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>charlie b wrote:
>>...
>>
>>
>>> One of the arguements the ID folks present is
>>> "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
>>> to merely just happen by accident. therefore
>>> it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
>>
>> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
>> have a Scientific case to make to support that
>> conclusion. We may well never know, because
>> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
>> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
>> to avoid having this debate.
>
>
> What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
> can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
> hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
> astrologers and polygraphers have.
>
> Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
> silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
> to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.
You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here
but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science*
(or at least they say they are). "We will never know" whether
or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
peer review of those claims. This is fundamentally different
than "not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable
membranes." Because theology and chemistry are not both scientific
disciplines and thus not open to similar review processes. The essence
of the ID claim is that (at least part of it) is that it is *science*
so why shouldn't the existing infrastructure of science be called
upon to review it?
>
> Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
> doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
> dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
> agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
> in reality, flock together.
Ad hominem
<SNIP>
> Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
> Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
> minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
> to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
> multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
> they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
> someone else's!
No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited
to evaluate claims made in/against their field.
>
> You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
> they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
> are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
> opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.
No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified
the IDers might have a point.
>
> I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe
> they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious
> supporters.
You can believe what you like. Among any group of people, *including
scientists* there is wide variability in honesty, intellectual clarity,
and motivation. Dismissing the honor of an entire group of people
because you don't like what they say strikes me as pretty reactionary.
>> For example, evolution *within* a particular species,
>> over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from
>> less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms
>> is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in
>> biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not
>> demonstrated by direct experiment. If they
>> were, the discussion about Evolution would
>> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
>> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
>> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
>> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
>> Ted Kennedy.
>
>
> And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
> ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
> process to occur.
>
> A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
> like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.
>
> Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
> from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
> like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
> by extrapolation from present day motion.
All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment
is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone.
The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility
that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker
of the methods available to science. All I have ever argued for
in this thread (and elswhere) is that, since no experimental
verification is possible, there needs to be a more open attitude
towards alternative explanations and the rapid destruction of new
bad theories as they arise.
>
> If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
> on continental drift would THAT upset you?
>
If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new
science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing,
yes it would.
Mark & Juanita
>Steve Peterson wrote:
>
>> See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
>> for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
>> pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
>
>That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
>design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
>reading of the Genesis account.
>
>> public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
>> scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
>
>Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
>in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
>most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
>taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
>or claims.
>
Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a
certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that
relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the
initial genesis of the universe to which they pledge their allegience to
the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and
logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that
cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause.
The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that
scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and
substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes).
Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang
and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other
theology.
One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
-- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
a scientific comment.
>>
>> read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as
>> "teach the controversy."
>>
>> Steven Peterson, Ph.D.
>> Steve #564 on the Steve's List
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
>PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Charlie Self
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
> -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
> problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
> theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
> a scientific comment.
>
>
Well, we might try another quote from Darwin: "We can allow satellites,
planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed
by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by
special act."
Robatoy
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote:
Man cannot create a worm, but we create gods by the thousands.
(somebody said that)
George
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1128042868....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the
> next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the
> Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is
> not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that
> had to be kicked and it often kicked back.
>
You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and
religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus
do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower.
"God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous
physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him.
Steve Peterson
>>>>IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
>>>>certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
>>>>a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
>>>>journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
>>>>newsgroup. It would be off-topic.
>>>
>>>This argument is a red-herring.
>>
>>
>> No, it is spot on.
>>
>>
>> Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
>> etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
>> their specific sub-branches of science?
>>
>> I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
>> to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
>> to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.
still snipping
>>
>> If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
>> their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
>> invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
>> is the right of those publishers or sponsors.
>>
>> The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
>> damn thing at all for them.
>>
>> No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
>> to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
>> satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.
>
>
> Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment
> refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly
> well better be still when the IDers want their theories
> taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of
> the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment
> want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants
> them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their
> ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so
> as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them
> or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics.
>
>
lots more snipping - trying to keep this short.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Putting aside the name calling, here are some considerations. The ID
"scientists" need to approach the problem scientifically if they expect
scientific acceptance. This means using the scientific method:
1. propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon
2. design experimental tests that show that the hypothesis does, indeed,
explain something that is not otherwise adequately explained by conventional
science
3. report these results through refereed journals and conferences. If 1
and 2 are proper and compelling, the results will be accepted, and hence the
hypothesis will be established.
4. keep in mind Occam's razor: the best explanation is the simplest one.
This process usually is iterated, with one set of results suggesting more
investigations. However, repeated assertions that "something" is too
complicated for natural selection to account for it does not constitute a
meaningful hypothesis or its experimental investigation. The ID advocates
have not yet built up a scientific case to insert into the science
curriculum.
IMHO
Steve
Tim Daneliuk
I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument
and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues
separated...
Tim Daneliuk
In a related vein:
Q: What is the difference between God and a Surgeon?
A: God does not consider himself a Surgeon.
--
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>charlie b wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
> >>>classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
> >>>might be discussed in science classes.
> >>
> >>It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
> >>part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
> >>discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
> >>religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
> >>secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
> >>another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
> >>knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
> >>at least the ones who taught me.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right?
>
> No. I am not Catholic nor do I have much patience
> for the RC church on lots of different levels
> (social, philosophical, political ...)
No surprise to me, having had a bit of Catholic education
myself.
>
> >
> > One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> > "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> > to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> > it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
>
> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> to avoid having this debate.
Astrologers claim they have a scientific case to make
that planetary motions affect human behaviour. I submit
that it is not at all inapropriate to deny them space
in Astronomy and Psychology Journals even though some
Astorlogers, unlike ALL IDers deny that there is any
metaphysical component or conclusion in their work.
Scientifically, ID is a nonstarter because it presumes,
invokes, or draws conclusions about a metaphysical influence.
Science by its very nature purposefully excludes metaphysical
considerations. Science is a search for physical explanations
for natural phenomena.
>
> > They overlook the billions of years of trial and
> > error that went into how that complexity developed.
> > If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't
> > be a need for multiple iterations of a design to
> > meet a specific environment/set of conditions.
>
> You don't know that. It is entirely possible that
> an intelligent designer incorporated evolutionary
> processes into the development of the Universe.
> It is possible that multiple iterations were
> "created" to make the resulting system "adaptive"
> so that best design wins - a sort of genetic
> algorithm approach.
But that is cetainly NOT what is at issue with the ID.
Any number of scientists who are adherants of religions
that include creation mythology regard natural law as
having been written by God's hand. None-the-less they
recognize that science is the search for understanding of
those laws, not the identification of the author.
...
> >
> > But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we
> > (males) still don't have hair that'll last
> > a lifetime :), at least not me.
>
> That's because we modern humans have the bad
> manners to live long beyond the duration needed
> to reproduce. A truly counter-evolutionary
> behavior.
>
Not so fast. When grandparents assist in the raising of
their grandchildren the parents who are in the prime of life
are freed to expend more of their time on other matters
important to the survival of the species. Thus there
is an evolutionary advantage to long life which may outweigh
the cost in additional resources used to sustain that long
life.
--
FF
charlie b
By Gene Weingarten
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 14, 1999; Page C01
Memo to: The members of the Kansas Board of Education
From: God
Re: Your decision to eliminate the teaching of evolution as science.
Thank you for your support. Much obliged.
Now, go forth and multiply. Beget many children. And yea, your children
shall beget children. And their children shall beget children, and their
children's children after them. And in time the genes that have made you
such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection. Because that
is how it works.
Listen, I love all my creatures equally, and gave each his own special
qualities to help him on Earth. The horse I gave great strength. The
antelope I gave great grace and speed. The dung beetle I gave great
stupidity, so he doesn't realize he is a dung beetle. Man I gave a
brain.
Use it, okay?
I admit I am not perfect. I've made errors. (Armpit hair--what was I
thinking?) But do you Kansans seriously believe that I dropped
half-a-billion-year-old trilobite skeletons all over my great green
Earth by mistake? What, I had a few lying around some previous creation
in the Andromeda galaxy, and they fell through a hole in my pocket?
You were supposed to find them. And once you found them, you were
supposed to draw the appropriate, intelligent conclusions. That's what
I made you for. To think.
The folks who wrote the Bible were smart and good people. Mostly, they
got it right. But there were glitches. Imprecisions. For one thing, they
said that Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and then Cain begat Enoch.
How
was that supposed to have happened?
They left out Tiffany entirely!
Well, they also were a little off on certain elements of timing and
sequence. So what?
You guys were supposed to figure it all out for yourselves, anyway.
When you stumble over the truth, you are not supposed to pick yourself
up,
dust yourself off and proceed on as though nothing had happened. If you
find a dinosaur's toe, you're not supposed to look for reasons to call
it
a croissant. You're not big, drooling idiots. For that, I made dogs.
Why do you think there are no fossilized human toes dating from a
hundred million years ago? Think about it.
It's okay if you think. In fact, I prefer it. That's why I like Charlie
Darwin. He was always a thinker. Still is. He and I chat frequently.
I know a lot of people figure that if man evolved from other organisms,
it means I don't exist. I have to admit this is a reasonable assumption
and a valid line of thought. I am in favor of thought. I encourage you
to
pursue this concept with an open mind, and see where it leads you.
That's all I have to say right now, except that I'm really cheesed off
at laugh tracks on sitcoms, and the NRA, and people who make simple
declarative sentences sound like questions?
Oh, wait. There's one more thing.
Did you read in the newspapers yesterday how scientists in Australia
dug up some rocks and found fossilized remains of life dating back
further
than ever before? Primitive, multicelled animals on Earth nearly 3
billion
years ago, when the planet was nothing but roiling muck and ice and
fire.
And inside those cells was . . . DNA. Incredibly complex strands of
chemicals,
laced together in a scheme so sophisticated no one yet understands
exactly
how it works.
I wonder who could have thought of something like that, back then.
Just something to gnaw on.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
DCH
6C4A2B.225...@news.bellglobal.com:
This is by no means my forte, but I have been thinking a lot as of late
about life, and why all this is here, about religion, and quantum
physics....I like the idea of intelligent design, I think we are hard
wired to look to a higher power, sometimes faith is all we have to keep
us going....
Then again, Darwin has his points...and I really do like the idea of
evolution, it just makes sense to me...most religious folks think the
bible should be translated word for word...I think that blinds you from
other posible ideas...although I do think a lot can be learned there as
well...if we read it and think about it...
The more I ponder this matter...the more I think that maybe both ideas
are valid...When God said let there be light...maybe he did it with the
Big Bang....
Questions and comments welcome....
DCH
fredf...@spamcop.net
but it is STILL off-topic.
This discussion now fall squarely within the subject matter of
talk.origins but I suppose people who want Scientific Journals
to publish papers about God are not going to be inclined at all
to moving this thread to a newsgroup where it belongs.
Not, I daresay, a coincidence.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 16:16:03 EDT, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
> >> for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
> >> pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
> >
> >That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
> >design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
> >reading of the Genesis account.
> >
> >> public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
> >> scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
> >
> >Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
> >in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
> >most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
> >taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
> >or claims.
> >
>
> Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a
> certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that
> relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the
> initial genesis of the universe ...
Which is an issue of cosmology, not evolutionary biology and I
daresay that NO Journal of nor conference on Evolutionary Biology
will or should accept papers on cosmology.
> to which they pledge their allegience to
> the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and
> logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that
> cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause.
> The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that
> scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and
> substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes).
> Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang
> and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other
> theology.
Aside from the confabulation I addressed above, it is clear that
you do not undersand the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang theory does
not presume that the Universe was preceded by nothing.
However, "Creation Science" does presume that God Created the
Universe, "from the void".
Of course, like most scientists, I don't have a problem with that.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whom is a scientist
and whom is not almost everyone who calls himself a scientist
does have a problem with religionist insisting that "God did it"
must be an acceptable element of scientific theory.
For crying out loud, any time someone runs accross something they
can't explain they can just declare that "God did it" and be
done with it. Science came into existance precisely because
some people decided to look for non-divine casuality.
>
> One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
> -- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
> problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
> theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
> a scientific comment.
Before explaining why your final statement is plainly wrong let me
proceed on the assumption that the quote is reasonably accurate
and suggest a probable context. Natural Selection and adapted
traits were readily understood and observed. The stumbling block
for evolution theory in the 19th Century was the issue of
inheritance. While selective breeding was understood to the
extend that it had becomea very useful process there was still
no underlying physical process that could account for the
inheritance of traits whether they had been selected for or
acquired.
This was equally a problem for Lamarck and Darwin. So probably
Darwin's remarks was in the context of THAT problem.
Need I point out how easy it would have been for either Larmarck
or Darwin to address that deficiency by modifying the second laws
of their respective theories to say:
"Those traits are passed on to the next generation by Divine
intervention."
Logically, their theories would then be proven but only if,
a priori_ you accept a logic that allows metaphysical intervention
in the material world. To their credit neither man resorted
to that, the oldest excuse for an explanation that is to be
found in the historical record. They had enough backbone (or
not enough chutzpah) to make such a claim.
So the statement attributed to Darwin: "yes, there were problems,
but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't
based on creation" IS a very scientific statement.
Scentific theories are by their very nature the best explanations
for Natural phenomena that are independent of metaphysical
considerations.
Until you accept that, you reject science.
"God chose to do it this way" is not an element of a scientific
theory. It is an excuse to not do science at all.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
George wrote:
> <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:1128042868....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You say that those great Scientists had to "kick Science to the
> > next level". In fact, they met with resistance not from the
> > Scientific community but fron politics and religion. It is
> > not Science that had to be kicked, it was non-Science that
> > had to be kicked and it often kicked back.
> >
>
> You'll want to re-think that one. Scientists have both politics and
> religion - pretty much the same thing , belief over observation - and thus
> do not operate in an intellectual ivory tower.
No and I suggest you read what I went on to write about each
of them. If some contemporaries of Copernicus were reluctant
to accept the Copernican model, or spoke out against it, maybe
it was because others who did not were being burned at the stake.
That is not an example of scientists allowing THEIR politics
and religion ot get in their way.
Fact is, prior to Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary
motion there was no scientifically compelling reason to prefer
a heliocentric model over a geocentric one. Kepler's laws
made teh heliocentric model more attractive becuase it then
had predictive value, albeit through correlation, not causative
considerations. The discovery of the law of gravity and the
developement of dymanics were needed to provide a sound
theoretical basis on which to prefer one over the other.
A reluctance to accept a new theory that lacks a sound scientific
basis to prefer it over existing theory unless and until such
a basis is demonstrated is not adherance to orthodoxy.
>
> "God does not dice with the universe." Is a famous saying by a famous
> physicist, but Heisenberg finally gained acceptance in spite of him.
Finally? In spite of him? Of the four papers cited for Einstein's
Nobel prize, three relied on quantum mechanics. That was in 1905.
At that time, Special Relativity, the only non-quantum paper cited,
was the theory most in doubt.
As Carl Sagan (hmm, I can hear booing and hissing in the penut gallery)
said:
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Einstein and they laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
I'll just point out that it was religious zealots who laughed at
Galileo, competetors for state funds who laughed at Columbus,
Nazis who laughed at Einstein, and people who recognize a clown
when they see one who laughed at Bozo.
The latter folks, I daresay are the same ones who laugh at
"Creation Science" when they see "Intelligent Design".
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
(And how could you tell)
One of mistakes is accepting that the IDers are making
"claims of science", on their say so alone, and then extrapolating
from that to the conclusion that they are not getting their
articles published because they are being repressed by "Scientific
Orthodoxy".
Instead of invokig conspiracy therory, shouldn't you consider
the likelihood that they are not being published because their
papers do not rise to the standards, or conform to the subject
matter of the journals to which they are submitted?
Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers
and compare them to the articles that are being published in
those same Journals beofor accusing editors and peers about whom
you truly know nothing, of malice or iconoclasty?
> "We will never know" whether
> or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
> peer review of those claims.
What makes you think there has been no peer review? Maybe
those papers were went out for peer review and the peers
were uninimous in ther comments to the editors that the
papers were crap.
For that matter, can you be so sure than any 'IDer' actrually
submitted any such paper in the first place?
> > ...
> > Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
> > doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
> > dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
> > agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
> > in reality, flock together.
>
> Ad hominem
No no, that was guilt by association. It is not ad hominem to call
a dishonest person, a dishonest person.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
> > Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
> > minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
> > to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
> > multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
> > they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
> > someone else's!
>
> No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited
> to evaluate claims made in/against their field.
Evidently those experts when acting in their roles as
editors of Journals in their fields, or peers who review
those papers have concluded that the putative papers in
question are not appropriate for publication. So why
don't you accept their evaluation?
>
> >
> > You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
> > they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
> > are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
> > opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.
>
> No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified
> the IDers might have a point.
I am by no means sure that I believe you.
Astronomers do not debate Astrologers or accept their
papers for publication in Astronomy Journals, the American
Lung Association does not debate the cigarette companies
or allow them to publish in their literature.
Simply engaging in the debate, no matter how ludricous or
indefensible the position of the opponent may be, lends
credence to the misperception that there is a controversy.
In science, there is no ID controversy because "God did
it that way" puts the issue outside of the boundaries of
science itself.
> >> the discussion about Evolution would
> >> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
> >> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> >> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> >> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> >> Ted Kennedy.
> >
> >
> > And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
> > ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
> > process to occur.
> >
> > A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
> > like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.
> >
> > Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
> > from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
> > like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
> > by extrapolation from present day motion.
>
> All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment
> is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone.
> The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility
> that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker
> of the methods available to science.
No the ideas are rejected for publication in a scientific Journal
because they are fundamentally metaphysical in nature. (Or rather,
I presume they are. You have not yet shown that any ID article
ahs ever been written, let alone submitted for publication.)
Whereas Scientific Journals uniformly reject papers confabulating
metaphysics with physical reality there are plenty of Journals
devoted to Metaphysical Considerations that do not mind inclusion
of some physical considerations. The IDers can publish there.
Indeed, since the sine quo non of ID is the inclusion of a
metaphysical element, by your argument it is the metaphysicists
who are most competent to evaluate it. The Evolutionary biologists
freely admit to having no professional expertise in metaphysics.
...
> >
> > If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
> > on continental drift would THAT upset you?
> >
>
> If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new
> science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing,
> yes it would.
That arguement adn some above, demonstrate a profound of the
proces sof publication is a Scientific Journal.
Pretty much every paper that is submitted gets a hearing. It
doesn't get to trial (e.g. publication) unless it passes peer
review. Probably most don't make it to peer review for the
same reasons that most lawsuits are returned to the petitioner
by a clerk without even being reviewed by a judge.
Of course we (including you) won't know for sure unless we
see some examples of what you claim to be happening.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> I more-or-less agree. There is a philosophical component to their argument
> and a scientific one. They are not doing a good job of keeping these issues
> separated...
>
Do you suppose that maybe that makes it difficult for them to get a
paper accepted for publication?
--
FF