Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,095 Year: 5,352/9,624 Month: 377/323 Week: 17/204 Day: 17/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
nator
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 204 (448427)
01-13-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Beretta
01-13-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
So, does that mean that my housecats and Siberian Tigers are not the same kind?
quote:
Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.
Does that mean that robins and crows are not the same kind?
quote:
Well again, do the experiment.
I am asking you to answer the questions I've asked.
Why won't you?
What about species that reproduce assexually, like worms and bacteria?
quote:
How do you identify these things?
Er, there are bacteria (and many plants and fungi) that don't require two parents combining half their DNA to produce offspring. Only one parent is needed. There is no "breeding", in other words, with other individuals.
What about them?
quote:
Are worms worms and are bacteria recognizable entities?
I don't know. What would you say makes a bacteria a bacteria, according to the 'kinds' model?
If classifications of "kind" is so obvious, then why isn't there a list published somewhere that everybody pretty much agrees with like there is for the gentic and morphological trees of life?
quote:
Genetic and morphological trees of life are human constructs -there are different ways of interpreting them depending on your preconceptions.
So, does this mean you don't consider DNA paternity testing to be accurate?
If you don't accept the genetic tree of life, then you must logically also reject DNA paternity testing, or the use of DNA in criminal forensics, since the technology and interpreative techniques are identical.
quote:
If you believe in evolution from a common ancestor, you make trees of life according to your philosophical beliefs -you assume they are related according to features like backbones but embryologically they often develop differently meaning they are not related or they would be developing the same way.
Bullshit.
Do you think that DNA paternity tests work like this? Do you think that people's philosophical beliefs determine how they analyse tests like this:
How does that work, exactly?
And anyway, if classification of "kinds" is so obvious, then why isn't there a published map or tree or ladder or whatever of "kinds" somewhere? Where are the definitions or methods used to determine on kind from another?
How, in other words, is the term helpful in understanding how nature works?
Really? I was not aware that a complete banana genome had been decoded. Can you link to a source to this information?
quote:
Sorry, read it some time ago - maybe you can source the information.
Maybe you can do your own research to support your own claims or don't make them.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 11:02 AM Beretta has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1513 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 204 (448431)
01-13-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Beretta
01-13-2008 5:04 AM


Turn on the lights and let the truth shine in ...
Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible
Which makes ID a religion.
So if other Christians believe in evolution does that mean evolution is a religion?
Not if they believe that evolution is a naturally occurring event, even where "naturally occurring" means according to natural laws made at creation. If evolution is as "natural" as gravity it is not part of the religious beliefs.
Only if they believe that god is the motive force behind evolution, directing events would it reach the scale of being a religious belief -- for them (not for everyone else).
Now I agree that Jars response:
Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible
Which makes ID a religion.
Is a bit of an overstatement. Rather I would say that your particular use of ID is religious, not that ID necessarily is because you (and all creationists\christians that adopt it) use it that way. The problem is that you can't separate your use of ID from your interpretation of what ID really involves.
As I've said, I find such use by creationist\christians rather amusing because of the contradictions involved between creationism\christianity and a pure ID approach. As a result all creaationist\christians that use ID use a corrupt version. This corrupt version of ID prevents them from pursuing a pure ID approach.
There was a thread a while ago about the ability of some people to combine their christian beliefs with the beliefs of other religions. It had some interesting comments, particularly about the resolution of contradictions, but the point is that combining creationism\christianity with ID is of the same nature as combining two or more versions of faith.
In a pure ID approach, the conclusions of science are necessarily all valid, whether it is the old age of the earth or the validity of evolution. We see this in some of the discussions by ID theoreticians about the old age of the earth and validity of evolution.
Let me outline how a pure ID approach would work:
Area A: discerning design
Assumption #A1: that there is an intelligent agent that is\has designed some aspect of the universe that we know. This can be anything from the beginning of the universe to the way quantum mechanics works on a daily basis.
Assumption #A2: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.
Conclusion #A1: that we must be able to discern all examples of human design from natural mechanisms. In other words we should be able, by some process, to identify human designed DNA from natural DNA, as an example.
Conclusion #A2: that, failing to develop the process required in Conclusion #A1, we must be able to discern examples of supernatural design mechanisms. In other words we should be able, by some process, to discern actual supernatural mechanisms in action, either at work in the present, or from the evidence of past usage.
Conclusion #A3: that, failing to develop the process required in Conclusion #A1 OR the process required in Conclusion #A2, we must learn as much as possible about all the natural mechanisms that exist in the universe so that they can be eliminated, and only when every last possible method of natural mechanisms has been eliminated can we consider supernatural means.
This means that all the (logically valid) conclusions of science that are based on all the evidence of reality that we currently know and as we currently understand, are necessarily all equally valid representations of reality, whether it is the old age of the Earth or the validity of evolution or the orbit of Mercury.
Area B: concerning the implementation of design
Assumption #B1: that the designer is a natural being, an extra-terrestrial, that is using\used natural means to accomplish their design (even though those natural means may not be known by us humans and thus could appear supernatural), together with
Assumption #A2 from above: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.
Conclusion #B1a: the means of accomplishment would leave evidence, "tool marks", of the work done by these beings, and thus demonstrate actual implementation of design (as do tool marks on watches and Mt Rushmore),
Conclusion #B1b: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is detectable, including mystery rays or the evidence of extra-terrestrial visits, OR
Conclusion #B1c: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is undetectable is specifically ruled out by assumption A2.
Conclusion #B1d: this does not answer the question of where the extra-terrestrial designer/s came from -- in less time than needed for the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on it. This leads to an iteration of extra-terrestrial designers until you run out of time and either have evolved or created being/s
This means, of course, that there should be a correlation between extra-terrestrial sightings and implementation of design, and that all extra-terrestrial sighting should be avidly investigated by ID proponents as possible evidence of the designers being caught red-handed.
OR
Assumption #B2: that the designer is a supernatural being, a god (or gods) of limited to unlimited ability, together with
Assumption #A2 from above: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.
Conclusion #B2a: the means of accomplishment would leave evidence, "tool marks", of the work done by these beings, and thus demonstrate actual implementation of design (as do tool marks on watches and Mt Rushmore),
Conclusion #2b: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is detectable, including mystery rays or the evidence of extra-terrestrial visits, OR
Conclusion #B2c: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is undetectable is specifically ruled out by assumption A2.
Conclusion #B2d: this does not answer the question of where the supernatural designer/s came from -- in less time than needed for the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on it. This leads to an iteration of supernatural designers until you run out of time and either have evolved or created being/s
Note that the assumption A2 is necessary for the detection of design, either in the existence of design or in the implementation of design, and that this means that the ability of the god/s involved is limited (see conclusions B1c and B2c).
Conclusions
A pure ID approach that avoids the question of religion leaves you with three conclusions:
(1) All science is valid: all the (logically valid) conclusions of science that are based on all the evidence of reality that we currently know and as we currently understand, are necessarily all equally valid representations of reality, whether it is the old age of the Earth or the validity of evolution or the orbit of Mercury. (Deism)
(2) All alien sightings are evidence of designers: there should be a correlation between extra-terrestrial sightings and implementation of design, all extra-terrestrial sighting should be avidly investigated by ID proponents as possible evidence of the designers being caught red-handed. (ETism)
(3) Limited god/s: the ability of the god/s involved is limited by their assumed inability to escape detection (see conclusions B1c and B2c), and without this assumption ID doesn't work. (Limited theism)
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : theism

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 5:04 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 7:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1513 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 204 (448433)
01-13-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Beretta
01-13-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.
Well again, do the experiment.
So when we can cross human DNA with the DNA of bacteria and have bacteria produce proteins\etc. that can be transfered back into humans without autoimmune rejection symptoms (ie - it is human), this proves that bacteria and humans are the same kind?
ibid cows, pigs, monkeys, mice, etc etc etc ...
Excellent. Done. Therefore there is one "kind": life.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 11:02 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 204 (448482)
01-13-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
01-13-2008 8:54 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta responds to me:
quote:
He has an affiliation to a religious institution
No, it goes much deeper than that. Yes, he is a Roman Catholic, but that isn't what I mean when I said that he is a stanch religionist. What I meant was that he is a board member of a group that specifically wishes to insert religion into society in general and science in particular. If that isn't an example of someone with a religious agenda, what is?
quote:
If you count him as a staunch religionist then we'll have to throw in Richard Dawkins and all the atheists who believe by faith that there is no creator God.
Except atheism is the absence of faith.
quote:
So maybe the entire argument is religious on both sides
Except one side doesn't know what "religion" is. Science is an observational method and has no understanding of what "faith" is. Science doesn't preclude the existence of god. It simply ignores it just as it ignores you. That doesn't mean you don't exist. It's just that science studies what happens despite you, not because of you.
quote:
God or no God -that is the question?
Not to science. Science doesn't care about god.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 8:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 6:08 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 110 of 204 (448520)
01-13-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
01-13-2008 4:47 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Hello Beretta,
I apologise for my "offensive" comment. It was based on my misreading of your post (need new spec's I fear) and upon re-reading, it is clear that you are not saying what I mistakenly thought you were saying. You are of course entitled to your own view of "truth".
Of course so are other Christians. There are many versions of Christianity out there, and there is no way for you to know whether yours is the version approved by God. Evolution may be incompatible with your Christianity, but it is perfectly acceptable for others, and they are no less Christian for it.
I admire your forthrightness in expressing your belief about evolution in an openly theistic way, but it is a fact that ID was created by Christian fundamentalists, with the express intent of getting creationism into schools by the back door, without having to mention God. The overwhelming majority of those who espouse ID are Christian creationists. ID only exists to provide a veneer of scientific respectability and fool the school boards into accepting creationism.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 4:47 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5705 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 111 of 204 (448576)
01-14-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by reiverix
01-13-2008 10:51 AM


Re: ID is not religion
How about non-Christians David Berlinski and Michael Denton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by reiverix, posted 01-13-2008 10:51 AM reiverix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2008 8:57 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2008 8:58 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 114 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 10:07 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 204 (448606)
01-14-2008 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Beretta
01-14-2008 1:35 AM


Re: ID is not religion
Sorry, double post.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 01-14-2008 1:35 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 204 (448607)
01-14-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Beretta
01-14-2008 1:35 AM


Re: ID is not religion
How about non-Christians David Berlinski and Michael Denton
You mean the same Michael Denton who wrote this:
quote:
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
(Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny)
We are both talking about the same Michael Denton, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 01-14-2008 1:35 AM Beretta has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6016 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 114 of 204 (448615)
01-14-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Beretta
01-14-2008 1:35 AM


Re: ID is not religion
Beretta
How about non-Christians David Berlinski and Michael Denton?
David Berlinski eh? I have to ask you . Would you let your accountant prescribe medication to you or would you prefer a doctor?
Why then is a mathematician holding court on the validity of a matter in biology?
Should a microbiologist tell Berlinski that his thoughts on Ramuanujan's Sum Identity are ludicrous and without warrant?
Did Einstein listen to his tailor when formulating general relativity theory?
David Berlinski ,you might also note, does not attack Darwin alone but also Intelligent Design so perhaps this is not a can of worms you wish to open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 01-14-2008 1:35 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 115 of 204 (448633)
01-14-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
01-13-2008 8:54 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Only agnostics get counted out in that case because they don't believe either way in fact by definintion they don't believe that you can know
So maybe the entire argument is religious on both sides but only one side can be right.So what does the evidence show is more likely?
You're confused about Atheism. We've gone over this many times in many threads, so let's just make it clear and not make a giant discussion of it here to derail the topic: Atheists do not have faith that there is no god. Atheists simply have no belief in a god.
Think of it this way: does it require faith for you to believe that there is not, in fact, an invisible fairy named Dixie fluttering next to you right now? Or do you simply have no reason to believe that the fairy is there, and so it doesn't occur to you?
It's the same with Atheists. We don;t see any evidence of any deities or the supernatural, so we simply don't believe in them. We don't have a positive belief that they do not and cannot exist, we simply have a lack of belief that they do. Do you see the difference?
This is contrasted by Agnostics, who believe we cannot know one way or the other.
A simplified version would go like this:
Agnostic: "I don't know, and we really can't know one way or the other."
Atheist: "Yeah, but given the complete lack of evidence, I don't think so. I'll believe it when I see evidence, and not before."
Science, of course, doesn't care about any of this. Its position is inherently skeptical of everything (a necessity of Occam's Razor - extraneous entities are irrelevant and should simply be ignored in any model).
This is why ID is religious, and evolution is not - ID is adding an extraneous entity when no such entity is required. Parsimony requires that the simplest model (that is, the model with the fewest terms or entities) is to be preferred.
The Theory of Evolution looks like this:
(diversity of life seen today) = (life) + (evolution as observed in modern species) + (time)
This model is backed up by mountains of evidence.
ID looks like this:
(diversity of life seen today) = (life) + (evolution as observed in modern species) + (time) + (unnamed "designer")
The only evidence for this unnamed "designer" is incredulity with respect to the complexity of life. IDists literally look at a model of a cell and say "wow, there's no way that could have evolved on its own," and so add an additional entity to the equation.
But there are two problems with this. The first is parsimony, or Occam's Razor, as we just discussed - all other things being equal, the simplest expression is to be preferred.
If
1 + 2 + 3 = 6
AND
1 + 2 + 3 + x = 6
THEN
x = 0, and is irrelevant - there's no reason to mention x at all. It could exist, or it could not, but it has nothing to do with the equation.
What is x in the above examples? The (unnamed "designer"). Could the designer exist? Sure. But without evidence that requires it to exist in order for the model to function, it's irrelevant and science has no reason to make any mention of it.
This, by the way, is why science is religion-neutral. There's simply no reason for science to comment on religious matters until the day a deity is required by evidence to make an accurate model function.
The other problem with the assumed "designer" is that the entire idea begins with incredulity: "there's no way that could possibly have evolved by itself, so I will add in the undefined term "designer" without any associated mechanism for the designing to satisfy my incredulity. Plus, there's the bonus that it fits with my existing religious beliefs."
As we know, any conclusion that stems from a logical fallacy is fallacious itself. ID stems from an argument from incredulity, and so is a fallacious argument.
So: who is adding an extraneous entity to a model that has already proven through evidence and extensive testing to be highly accurate? ID.
Who is basing their entire point on the logical fallacy of incredulity? ID.
Who adds an extraneous and undefined entity while refusing to even define "design" or how to distinguish it? ID
Which model follows the scientific model, passes its hypotheses through the peer review process, constantly tests its predictions, and obeys parsimony? The Theory of Evolution.
Which is a scientific model, and which is based on religion?
It looks pretty obvious to me.
As an aside, and just to highlight some more of the differences between science inferring the existence of an additional entity and ID's undefined addition from incredulity:
Science often infers the existence of an entity from indirect evidence. For instance, the outer planets in our solar system were inferred to exist long before they were actually seen due to their gravitational effects on the other planets.
Perhaps the best corollary (and one cdesign proponentists have brought up a few times before) would be "dark matter."
Dark matter is an undefined form of matter (possibly nonbaryonic, or simply non-light-reflective) that is inferred to exist due to the fact that galaxies are still held together despite insufficient detectable mass to produce enough gravity.
In this case, dark matter is like the undefined designer - we don't really know what it is, only a few ideas of what to start looking for. The anomaly it's invoked to explain could even just be the result of an incomplete model of gravitational forces.
Doesn't this violate parsimony? We're talking about adding an additional entity to the model despite never having observed it, and not even really being able to say what it could be. It's just as undefined as the "designer," right?
It's the reasons for the inference that make the difference. Dark matter is inferred to exist because we actually see the amount of mass in galaxies - it can be measured. "Appearance of design" cannot be measured - design can;t even seem to be defined. Dark matter is not inferred to exist because of incredulity ("there's no way that little mass could hold galaxies together"); rather, we know very well how gravity works, and can calculate the forces involved with relative ease. The math shows that the gravity from the observed mass alone cannot account for the force required to hold galaxies together - the evidence requires the existence of an additional entity, or possibly a refining of our models of the forces involved, to account for the observations. The entity is left undefined because of the lack of evidence regarding it's properties - we know how much extra gravity is required, and we know that we can't as of yet detect whatever it is, and that's about it. This is different from ID, where "design" is inferred due to incredulity, the "designer" is invoked to account for the undefined design, and yet neither is required by any model to function.
So: dark matter is inferred to explain an observed, quantified and defined anomaly, and only as a last resort (calculations regarding the effects of gravity if the model is adjusted to compensate by adding additional gravity from vast distances or other such exotic modifications to our understanding of the gravitational force don't even come close to matching the observed universe).
The "designer" is inferred to explain "design," an undefined term that cannot be quantified and is itself the result of mere incredulity rather than observational requirements.
Do you see the difference?
ID is simply religion, even leaving aside the facts of the Dover trial where the cdesign proponentists were proven to be Christian Creationists attempting to weasel around the establishment clause and add their religious beliefs to science class. The very concept of ID as it stands today invokes undefined extraneous entities to "explain" undefined and unquantified "design," works from the basis of bare incredulity, and doesn't actually propose any sort of mechanism for the "designer" to work his "design" outside of the existing and accurate evolution model.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 8:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 2:24 PM Rahvin has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6016 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 116 of 204 (448635)
01-14-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 2:17 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Rahvin
Atheists do not have faith that there is no god. Atheists simply have no belief in a god.
Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that bald is a hair color.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 2:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 2:43 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2008 4:22 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 117 of 204 (448638)
01-14-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by sidelined
01-14-2008 2:24 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Rahvin
quote:
Atheists do not have faith that there is no god. Atheists simply have no belief in a god.
Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that bald is a hair color.
Exactly. Or that "shadow" is a form of light. Or that "cold" is a form of energy.
The insistence that Atheism is a belief system, or requires faith, is simply a projection from those who do have faith and find it inconceivable that an individual should have none. They can accept other religions (most of the time), but not an absence of faith.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 2:24 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 01-14-2008 3:49 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2008 10:45 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 204 (448639)
01-14-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 2:43 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that bald is a hair color.
Exactly. Or that "shadow" is a form of light. Or that "cold" is a form of energy.
I've always liked "or that 'off' is a TV channel."

Few men and fewer women had the means or the desire to write a book on "How I failed to overcome my humble origins." -- Graham Robb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 2:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 119 of 204 (448712)
01-14-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 2:43 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Rahvin,
As an aside, I recall a study in the UK, that found that government advice to the elderly on keeping warm during winter by insulating their homes, was less effective if phrased as "keep the heat in". People found it easier to understand if phrased as "keep the cold out", despite the fact that there is no such force as "cold". Advice was duly issued on how to keep out cold.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 2:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 204 (448762)
01-15-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by sidelined
01-14-2008 2:24 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
sidelined writes:
quote:
Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that bald is a hair color.
The best phrasing I have heard is:
Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 2:24 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024