Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 4:53 PM
248 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Dr Adequate, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 243 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,460 Year: 10,283/29,783 Month: 947/1,583 Week: 416/291 Day: 65/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Is ID a right wing conspiracy?
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1020 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 61 of 76 (231955)
08-10-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
08-10-2005 2:52 PM


Thus while we both agree they should not be taught, I disagree with your assessment TE is not science. It certainly is as long as its belief in a deity is not discussed as a scientifically valid conclusion.

How can theistic evolution, whose entire reason for seperation from plain evolution is that its adherants believe a deity started the process, possibly NOT discuss its belief in a deity?!

Just teach plain evolution, don't mention God's existance or lack thereof, and leave the science classroom to pure science. TE is just as invalid as ID in the classroom becuase it requires the acknowledgement of a deity whose existance is as provable as that of magic fairies.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2005 2:52 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 08-11-2005 4:26 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3652 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 76 (232165)
08-11-2005 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rahvin
08-10-2005 2:57 PM


possibly NOT discuss its belief in a deity?!

As long as they separate their belief from knowledge then they may remain scientific. I'm sure you can understand this as there are many competing beliefs about how the universe began, without gods but other equally theoretical mechanisms. Occam's razor cuts them all.

One might argue that Occam's cuts a diety, especially a specific diety, a little faster than the rest, but they are all theoretical and cut out. We have no evidence for anything that occured near or previous to what we currently consider the "big bang".

Yes, their additional belief should not be taught in a science class, and on that we agree because it is speculative belief and nothing to do with scientific knowledge. However outside of the classroom they remain as scientific as an atheist who speculates on circularly repeating explosions within a multidimensional framework. That and deities not only have no evidence to support them (at this time) but we have no way of guessing what rules apply to them.

Does my distinction make sense now?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 08-10-2005 2:57 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 08-11-2005 12:48 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1020 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 63 of 76 (232287)
08-11-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
08-11-2005 4:26 AM


As long as they separate their belief from knowledge then they may remain scientific. I'm sure you can understand this as there are many competing beliefs about how the universe began, without gods but other equally theoretical mechanisms. Occam's razor cuts them all.

One might argue that Occam's cuts a diety, especially a specific diety, a little faster than the rest, but they are all theoretical and cut out. We have no evidence for anything that occured near or previous to what we currently consider the "big bang".

Yes, their additional belief should not be taught in a science class, and on that we agree because it is speculative belief and nothing to do with scientific knowledge. However outside of the classroom they remain as scientific as an atheist who speculates on circularly repeating explosions within a multidimensional framework. That and deities not only have no evidence to support them (at this time) but we have no way of guessing what rules apply to them.

Does my distinction make sense now?

If a TE seperates his beliefs from the science and refers only to evolution itself as science without mentioning his faither...

Than it's just plain evolution. Which IS science. I have no problem with that.

But again, that would not be TE being taught in schools or representing itself as science.

If TE presents itself as science, I have a problem. If ID presents itself as science, I have a problem. If a person who believes ID or TE teaches strict evolution, and does not add their personal beliefs into the picture, I have no problem.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 08-11-2005 4:26 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 64 of 76 (235086)
08-20-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mick, posted 08-20-2005 8:53 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 2819 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 65 of 76 (235091)
08-20-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Brad McFall
08-20-2005 8:33 PM


brad writes:

There really is *some* kind of "disconnect here. At least as much as any could be in any posting sequence between you and me.

made me smile! Thanks for the link.

brad writes:

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.

Okay, I guess we're all forced into doing that whenever we try to draw a line (for example) between what is just a lump of flesh and what is a human being....

brad writes:

If Dean can be excluded from this criticism then I suppose your investigation into this "right wing" might gain substance

is howard dean right wing? he looks it to me, but I might mean "conservative" rather than right wing. maybe I just mean "american".

thanks

mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 08-20-2005 8:33 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 08-21-2005 11:50 AM mick has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 76 (235240)
08-21-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mick
08-20-2005 8:53 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mick, posted 08-20-2005 8:53 PM mick has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 76 (235833)
08-23-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


Contradiction
Quote: "...the first step in a more general attack on materialistic society and an attempt to replace that society with one based upon "conservative-Christan" moral norms."

As near as I can tell from the voting record of the red states, "Materialistic society" IS the conservative-Christian moral norm.

Exxon makes 75 Billion dollars and gets a tax break while poor kids are shipped off to fetch more oil for the fat cats


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 11:34 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 76 (237961)
08-28-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nuggin
08-23-2005 3:43 AM


Re: Contradiction?-no
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 265

Kant's Critique of Judgement published by Hafner Publishing Co. NY

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 11:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 08-23-2005 3:43 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 76 (247687)
09-30-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


"right wing conspiracy"?
I've been wondering for a long time if evolutionists are, for the most part, left wing liberals who are just as arrogant and close minded in their thinking of the origin of life as they are politically. Any thoughts?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Clark, posted 09-30-2005 2:33 PM Springer has not yet responded
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2005 5:42 PM Springer has not yet responded
 Message 72 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 2:52 PM Springer has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 3:02 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 76 (247695)
09-30-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Springer
09-30-2005 2:21 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
George Will and Charles Krauthammer, two prominent conservative pundits, came out recently in support of evolution and against ID. President Bush's science advisor did the same. Several members of EvC are conservative and evolutionists.

OTOH, the only people that I'm aware of that support ID are right-wing Evangelical Christians.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Springer, posted 09-30-2005 2:21 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 76 (247778)
09-30-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Springer
09-30-2005 2:21 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
I've been wondering for a long time if evolutionists are, for the most part, left wing liberals who are just as arrogant and close minded in their thinking of the origin of life as they are politically.

No, evolutionists are those to hold the position that the theory of evolution is the best and most accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth - which happens to be the position supported by the evidence.

I'm aware of many, many right-wing evolutionists. If you're referring to biologists, on the other hand, it is generally true that, like every academic community, they lean heavily left-wing. This probably has something to do with the right-wing generally dismissing the work of teachers, professors, librarians, and other academics for decades. No surprise then to see them poorly represented among educators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Springer, posted 09-30-2005 2:21 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 72 of 76 (248230)
10-02-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Springer
09-30-2005 2:21 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
quote:
I've been wondering for a long time if evolutionists are, for the most part, left wing liberals who are just as arrogant and close minded in their thinking of the origin of life as they are politically. Any thoughts?

I would try to keep my politics and science separate.

However, I've only enountered one possible left-wing Young-Earth Creationist in years of reading boards like this, and a lot of people that seem to like to argue against Creationism seem to lean more toward the left.

I don't think there is a causal relationship there, but I suspect correlation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Springer, posted 09-30-2005 2:21 PM Springer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nwr, posted 10-02-2005 3:05 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6437
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 73 of 76 (248238)
10-02-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Springer
09-30-2005 2:21 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
Well, Springer, I used to be a religious fundamentalist, and quite conservative politically (or at least a politically as a high school kid could be). Despite it all, I came to accept the theory of evolution.

By the way, my father was quite conservative when he was alive -- even a big contributor to the Republican Party. Yet he was also quite an adamant atheist -- unlike my (present) left-wing atheist self, he hated Christians.

Funny, huh?

By the way, you can show how open-minded you are by addressing some of the points that I brought up in a previous conversation.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Springer, posted 09-30-2005 2:21 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 74 of 76 (248239)
10-02-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by gene90
10-02-2005 2:52 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
It is my impression that intelligent knowledgable people tend to be politically near the center. The far right and far left are more prone to irrationality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 2:52 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 3:10 PM nwr has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6437
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 75 of 76 (248241)
10-02-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nwr
10-02-2005 3:05 PM


Re: "right wing conspiracy"?
It is my impression that people tend to attribute "intelligence" to their own beliefs and opinons and "irrationality" to beliefs and opinions that they disagree with. ;)

NOTE THE SMILEY!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nwr, posted 10-02-2005 3:05 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 10-02-2005 3:23 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018