You see nearly identical. Monumental..... You posts are acting as filler quite nicely in that march to 300.
I recommend these contrasting articles on ID as it related to science, and there are quite a few that are good: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html I could comment on this thread for months on end. That is why I don't because I don't have the time. I feel that any good teacher in a science class will bring up ID anyway. They will dedicate one project to it. They will do this not in the name of God, but in the name of the advancement of science. I have stated my views on ID before, and while I believe in it for personal reasons, I do not believe it belongs in a science class. There are many many issues with Darwinian Evolution, many of which Darwin was aware of himself (see articles in above link.) The solution however is not to throw your hands up and say this is evidence for God, but to see if you can reach an impasse where no other agent could have been responsible. The pursuit of scientific knowledge teaches over and over and over again that trying to uncover the physical laws of what appears to be a black box, and therefore the work of God, leads to new breakthroughs in science. Evolution is not the only place where this is taking place. For example, Einstein believed that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. He came up with all sorts of experiments to try to disprove it, some of which are incredibly elegant. One of his thought experiments, known as the EPR paper, led to verfication without a doubt that our current understanding of nature through Quantum Mechanics is absolutely true! However, as Feynman said "No one really understands Quantum Mechanics." The issues raised about Quantum Mechanics leads to new insights and new theories and most importantly, new experiements that can be performed by anyone on the planet (universe in theory) to try to prove or disprove the theories. I guess one point is once you invoke God, does that stop you from doing science? I don't think so! What it comes down to is that there are some that are not blind to MetaPhysics, which is what ID really is. Should it be taught in schools? The problem is not the statement itself, but that it opens the door to other issues which could potentially cause chaos. For example when the issue of "God" comes up, and you have a muslim a jew and a christian in the class, which God is it that designed? You are going to insult someone. That is why if it is taught anywhere, it ishould be taught in Philosophy classes where wasting your time waving your hands in the air is ok, and if you go home and discuss this with your parents, they understand that it is a Philosophy course. But in a course on Physics or Chemistry or Biology? No way! I will say this finally: I was taught in a high school course in Astronomy several things which are clearly known to be wrong now. Why does no one complain about that? Was that science? Some more links for those that want to persue more science and philosophy: http://www.quantum.bowmain.com/Quantum_Reality.htm http://www.friesian.com/metaphys.htm nitro
More From The Patriot-News | Subscribe To The Patriot-News Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence Thursday, December 22, 2005 BY JOHN BEAUGE AND BILL SULON Of The Patriot-News WILLIAMSPORT - A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued. U.S. Middle District Attorney Thomas A. Marino said yesterday that decision will take time because there is "a lot of reading to do" to determine if the statements rise to the level of a crime. "I want to question a couple of people who were present," he said. They will not include Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the case, he said. Marino's comments came a day after Jones struck down the school district's policy of telling ninth-grade biology students Darwin's theory of evolution is not fact and intelligent design is an alternative explanation of the origin of life. In his opinion, Jones accused some of those who testified during the six-week trial in Harrisburg of lying, singling out former board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, the leading proponents of the policy. Both men testified during the trial, which ended last month, and both gave sworn statements in depositions on Jan. 3. During the trial, Jones and lawyers for parents opposed to the policy confronted the men about the discrepancies and evasiveness in their answers to questions about their motivations and efforts to raise money for a pro-intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People." During the trial, after questioning by Jones and lawyers, Bonsell and Buckingham acknowledged that Buckingham raised money for the books in his church, then wrote a check for $850 to Bonsell's father, who bought the texts and donated them to the school district. Neither man disclosed the transaction in their deposition. "The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their Jan. 3, 2005, depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas. ... ," Jones said in his ruling. "This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by [Bonsell and Buckingham] to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution." "Pandas" is a pro-intelligent design book written by creationists. Jones also questioned the "credibility" of statements by other school officials and former board members. In an interview, Buckingham called Jones a liar and denied making false statements. Bonsell has said he "tried to be as truthful" as he could. Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented parents opposed to the policy, said any decision to bring perjury charges would be made by the prosecutor's office.
It is my contention that the pressure that is building between the theists wanting to control what is taught in school, versus the scientists who want to control what is taught in school will end badly if the present course continues....and the children and future generations will be the ones who ultimately suffer. I see little spirit of compromise, and a willingness to bring the positive qualities of both the pure empirical approach and the intuitive spiritual side of life together in a more harmonius manner. The inclusion of ID, I believe will only strengthen both sides. An open debate among the students stimulates critical thinking. Critical thinking is not fostered when alternative ideas are prohibited and censored. We are headed for a time quickly approaching where the ethical issues of medicine and biological issues are going to impact genetic advancements, as well as an unknown and unknowable risk of long term side effects or unknown risk with things like cloning, and genetic alterations. By allowing the concept of a less than random chance existence to stay alive in the minds of children, they will be more capable of wisdom...not just pure science which is often blind to the full development of a well rounded individual. I also believe by allowing a non denominational ID theory to be taught (that would include the principles of all relgions....not just one particular religion) would allow the children to have a more expaned vision of spirituality, that will help to foster more acceptance of other ideas and greater tolerance. The true nature of science is agnostic, as it properly comments only on what it knows, and where it doesn't know, it is silent. There has been too much proliferation of random ignorant chance theory, simply because some scientists happen to believe it. This is not science, this is a different shade of myopia, exactly similar to the dangers of religion and fundamentalism have brought historically.
You understand my response jess fine, hooney. You're playing games, and intentionally avoiding a direct response. If you want to play Socrates you'll have to do it with someone else. I asked: "If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred" You responded: "What occured? God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it. You need further data points?" I then asked if this was essentially the Biblical Genesis. You responded: "Is that what you think?" This last answer is non responsive and it is especially "designed" to allow you to escape any precise expression of how you believe life developed on Earth. So, I asked you to either explain your position, or decline, and that if you're not willing to precisely explain your position on how life developed on Earth, then there is no reason to continue the coversation, because a non response could only be intended to keep you from having to defend your position, while permitting you to continue to attack the position of others. Stating that you don't know what the story of Genesis is, is equivalent to saying that you don't know who Santa Claus is. Unless you were born and raised in a box of Crackerjack with no access to any outside stimulus, then you know the tradional stories of Creation, and saying that you don't is the answer of a child. If you want to act like a child, that's fine, but I'm only interested in conversing with an adult on this issue. So, one more time, please explain your EXACT position on the origin of human life on Earth, because if you don't, then I will simply infer from your previous comments that you believe in magic and that it is your position that magic should be taught in science class as a an equally probable cause for the creation of human life on Earth. And, if that is your position, then you're welcome to it, however, I cannot engage it as a subject for debate, because a position based on supernatural causation cannot be undermined, as the existence of magic is unverifiable using any scientific methodology.
You may think you understand my response, but you are wrong. And please stop with the name calling, I am not hooney. You are making an accusation that I am playing games and intentionally avoiding a direct response. You are wrong, and I challenge you to prove your slanderous accusations. I did explain my exact position on the origin of man. If you have exact questions ask them, otherwise if you continue along this contentious and boorish avenue, I will no longer respond to your comments.
Your links are especially interesting to me. Thanks for posting them. You also state that you think that ID should be taught along side evolutionary theory. Since you have apparently read the short debate between the Ev/ID players you obviously have a grasp of the dispute, so I think it's reasonable to ask this question: What exactly would you teach regarding ID. Both Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Dembski's Specified Complexity theories have been soundly falsified by scientific means, at least to the extent that other scientists have taken the two ID movement proponent's positions based upon their own statements, and shown why those statements are palpably false. Neither Behe nor Dembski has stated an express theorem or scientific experiment that they claim verifies ID. There is no formula or fitness function from which a particular artifact or organism may be calculated as being more likely a product of design, vis-a-vis a product of evolutionary formation. For example, an evolutionary biologist can measure the total matching genetic material in an orangutan and a human, and conclude that if more than 98% of that material is identical, that the two creatures share some common heritage. The ID proponent can take the same measurement and state that this means that they were both created by the same designer. However, the evolutionary biologist does not need to invoke a magical mechanism. Mutation and natural selection is demonstrated scientifically using ordinary mathematical and computer modeling methods, to be able to produce organic life under selective pressure. So, there is no "leap" into the supernatural required to infer the evolutionary connection between the human and the orangutan. For the ID proponent, no mathematical model is proposed to demonstrate that magic must intrude at orangutan ancestor history point A, in order to create conditions suitable for the instantaneous creation of a divergent human ancestor. The ID proponent's entire argument is that "it just can't be an evolutionary process because I don't want it to be one." If Mr. Dembski's mathematics could actually be applied such that one, for example, could take a matchbox toy car and a piece of raw iron ore, and then map both of the objects down to their most discrete data points (containing elemental materials and physical placement, etc.), and then when the Dembski formula is applied, the function would spit out a number that says, matchbox toy is the product of 50% more design than is the raw ore, THEN there would be something to discuss in a science class. But, at the moment, ID is pure philosophy. There is no scientific test of anything available, nor has any been proposed. Michael Behe merely proposes that something that appears to be a "purposeful arrangement of parts," is therefore a product of design. But, he proposes no means of measuring how any particular arrangement of parts is more or less likely designed vs. not designed. He falls back on non science and just says, that it "looks" designed, therefore it must "be" designed. That is not science -- that's philosophy, because there is no test to be applied to the supposed scientific conclusion that the particular artifact is a "purposeful arrangement of parts." Furthermore, when I think hard about the universe, I cannot conjure up a single artifact that could "not" be viewed philosophically as a "purposeful arrangement." A hydrogen atom is as likely a product of design as is a Boeing 747, because there is no measuring device available to discriminate between the two objects. All we have is our "beliefs" and those beliefs, if we are to accept the more theistic available, would hold unequivocally, that both the 747 and the hydrogen atom are absolutely the product of a design and are both a "purposeful arrangement of parts." Furthermore, if we accept the existence of an all powerful creator, then the 747 is actually the creator's arrangement of parts, not the product of human industry, because the creator knows all and directs all and so nothing we do in this universe is not already predetermined in advance. The creator could decide that we need to leave one last rivet off of the fuselage or add one more and we wouldn't know one way or the other, or even if the creator had intervened. The point is that unless ID proposes a method under which its propositions (or as Z refers to them, "self-evident observations") may be measured, then ID is merely a philosophical muse, incapable of being the subject of any scientific investigation, but certainly capable of philosophic discussion. Why anyone would want this philosophic discussion to take place in a science classroom, with the particular intent being to expose students to the fact that scientists acknowledge that everything that science has learned about the universe is fundamentally wrong, and that the alternative truth is that a creator did everything and continues to maintain complete control over everything and everyone, is completely beyond my understanding. Science's purpose is to find natural answers to natural questions, not to find supernatural answers to natural or supernatural questions. Science cannot find natural answers to supernatural questions because finding the answer would make the supernatural natural by definition. So the only proposition left is for science to add finding supernatural answers to natural and supernatural questions. And, that, EXACT proposition USED to be the means by which a particular branch of SCIENCE operated. That branch of science was (and is) called ALCHEMY, which is the practice of science combined with mysticism. However, alchemy was long ago dismissed as having any use in the process of discovery, precisely because the mystical component operates as a roadblock to scientific investigation. Mysticism permits a supernatural answer to a natural question, and thus forecloses further natural investigation. In summary, if you want alchemy to be the proper field of study in public schools, then you should come right out and say so. But, you will be announcing that there is no need to discriminate against any non-scientific endeavor (astrology, palmistry, etc.), because without the constraint of the scientific method, all propositions are equally viable. As Z stated far up in this thread, ID is viable because its results are observable by anyone who looks around. Evidence of design is everywhere and anyone can see it. Maybe so, but NO ONE can measure it scientifically, because no one has produced any method of discrimination. ID is therefore an all or nothing proposition, you either believe it or you don't, and you cannot use any scientific device to confirm your proposition, because none exists, and none will ever exist. The existence of a scientific tool that would measure design, would instantly expose God as a "natural" actor in the universe, because the most essential aspect of God's existence is the ability to operate outside the constraints of the natural universe so God cannot be measured or verified, because he/she/it can simply change the rules and invalidate the test results. ID simply does not belong in a science class, because ID is not science -- it is religion.
when i was at the las vegas elite party a few of us were talking about elitetrader and the subject of the biggest wacko on elite came up. 100% of us spoke of our belief that one person stood out above all others. it does lend some credibility that the belief may have something very real behind it to have sustained it. any guesses who it was? by you criteria if enough people believe something it must be true. of course by that criteria every religion is true because every religion has people who are 100% sure they are right. in fact belief in a god is almost always determined by where you were born. if you were born in america you believe in a christian god if you were born in a muslim country you believe in the muslim god. it really has nothing to do with truth or evidence but more with indoctrination by parents.
i didnt mention your name but you win the prize. you are world famous for something. i suspect that is what you are mainly interested in anyhow.