Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

Well Mick I just might be comming around to talk about some of the new "politics" that might be confusing US leaders. Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution. I am becoming convinced that while not really a "right wing conspiracy" politics is getting the better of politicians.

quote:

---

Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.

​

Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.

---

There really is *some* kind of "disconnect here. At least as much as any could be in any posting sequence between you and me. I have tried recently to indicate to Parasomonium that the word "tissue" causes this speech breach.

quote:

---

"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith."

---

To him?Well here we go.Now I would like to hear the tape"" of Dean.I think really that what is going on here is what Kant warned AGAINST in his transcendetal asthetic that one CAN NOT confound form and matter without error. Russell seems to have thought that Cantor
"undermined" this work of Kant but I dont read that BUT DO FIND THIS POLITICS in its place. If Dean can be excluded from this criticism then I suppose your investigation into this "right wing" might gain substance. I just don't have all the information to judge as of yet.

If you think that Dean's comments made before Frist are conservative then indeed you probably meant "american" in my judgement.

quote:

---

HARRIS: Were you troubled by President Bush's endorsement that intelligent design should be taught alongside the evolution to schoolchildren?

​

Dr. DEAN: The president has been anti-science for a long time. This is the most anti-scientific regime that I've seen in America in my lifetime. I'm a trained physician, as you're aware. I'm insulted by that. It's going to harm America. What serious business is going to invest in America if a scientific education is influenced by politics? Science ought to be taught as science. If you want to teach religion, that's a separate debate. But science should be taught as science.

​

SCHIEFFER: What is intelligent design? What do you think of that idea?

​

Dr. DEAN: I think it's a religious idea. And actually, Einstein thought that there was some merit to it. Who am I to question Albert Einstein? But that is not--a religious idea is different than a scientific design. The idea that--and I don't think science and religion are incompatible. That's the thing that amazed me about this. You don't have to disbelieve evolution in order to be a religious person. So I don't understand why these folks continue to try to have this debate. But the truth of the matter is, intelligent design is a religious perception and a religious precept. That's fine. That should be taught wherever religion is taught, if that's the desire of those people who are religious.Science is science. There's no factual evidence for intelligent design. There's an enormous amount of factual evidence for evolution. Those are the facts. If you don't like the facts, then you can fight against them. The Catholic Church fought against Galileo for a great many, many centuries. But it never pays to ignore the facts. Reason we're in trouble in Iraq right now, president didn't care what the facts were. Reason we have a $7 trillion, almost $8 trillion national debt, president didn't care what the facts were. The facts matter. The truth is, you can't run a business, a state, a country or a family if you don't care what the facts are.

---

quote from Face the Nation
I had thought that Dean said something about Frist but I guess I mispoke as it appears he only called Bush "anti-science". If this is not in line with the facts I hope someone points it out. Dean is more obviously confusing form and matter as you and I dont disconnect on the "flesh" any tissue contains. I think Dean needs to be schooled in "Hume" a bit more. Maybe that is just me. I am not his advisor.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-21-2005 11:54 AM

Well I guess I would have had to accept this if Daniel C. Dennett had not come out with an OPED piece in the NY Times Today."Show me the Science" THE NEW YORK TIMES section 4 page 11
needs subscribtion
it shows ME that evos can not help themselves but "create" ID events by themselves.Yaro's new avatar is less an eye-sore than any relief this article succeeds in garnering one way or the other.Dennet is simply asking a poster on EVC to post in the Aquatic Ape thread etc rather than one dominated by Brazillian influence.This is not right but it, as an event, will move the right futher right,right?Why?Because it is plausible to replace a non-eliminatable teleology eliminating Aristotelian influence in the evident secular regime. Biology does not recognize the need but Dennet scripts potential academic use of Kant's

quote:

---

METHODOLOGY OF THE TELEOLOGICAL JUDGEMENT

​

79. Whether Teleology Must BE Treated As If It Belonged To the Doctrine of Nature

​

Every science must have its definite position in the encyclopedia of the sciences. If it is a philosophical science, its position must be either in the theoretical or practical part. If again it has its palce in the former of these, it must be either in the doctrine of nature, so far as it concerns that which can be an object of experience ( in the doctrine of bodies, the doctrine of the soul, or the universal science of the world), or inthe doctrine of God (the original gournd of the world as the complex of all objects of experience).

​

Now the question is: what place is due to teleology? Does it belond to natural science (properly so called) or to theology? One of the two it must be; for no science belongs to the transition from one to the other, because this transitions only marks the articulation or organization of the system, and not a place in it.

​

That it does not belong to theology as a part of it, although it may be made of the most important use therein, is self-evident. For it has as its objects natural productions and their cause, and although it refers at the same time to the latter as to a ground lying outside of an beyond nature (a Divine Author), yet it does not do this for the determinant but only for the reflective judgement in the consideration of nature (in order to guide our judgement on things in the world by means of such an idea as a regulative principle, in conformity witht he human understanding).

---

p 265Kant's Critique of Judgement published by Hafner Publishing Co. NYThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 11:41 AM