Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com:

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html


The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it
is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong
theory.

Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as
truth...

We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our
corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well
outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian
paradigm, if you will.

I won't! I won't!

Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen
something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither
you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose
to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent
design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence
based on currently available information.

To have intelligent design make sense, first we
have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of
random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was
so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as
saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is.

Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not.
While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even
"creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so
close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having
occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the
hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed
something influence my thinking on that subject.

Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our
best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle.

No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement
regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC,
religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by
individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious
atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are
attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact
while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_.

We'd have to

No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****.

throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological
skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based
for centuries.

Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it
needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish
to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes.

The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely
into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach
religion.

But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you
personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more
familiar with his writings.

Good God, you are stupid.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

HTH,
R

Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it
may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the
myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life? Just because
there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of
the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)-
than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of
life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the
Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than
even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient
Egyptians.


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:26:25 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

HTH,
R

Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it
may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the
myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life?

Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as
such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even
could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject
matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it.

Just because
there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of
the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)-
than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of
life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the
Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than
even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient
Egyptians.

The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I
don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an
absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual,
unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information
indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate
theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning
behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently
believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have
believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if
known.

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.

Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include
alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily
available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously,
14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically
dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals,
illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud
techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers,
and biology.

R


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

On 13 Dec 2006 20:16:27 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@
4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the
sun across the sky with his chariot.


The major things I find wrong with intelligent design are A: it
implies a designer. Okay. Wouldn't that equate with a god or
committee of gods? Spooky. And then there's B: where this
intelligent design leads. Are we what it was supposed to lead to? The
absolute best that this god / these gods could come up with over
billions of years? Not very good at their work, in that case.

Or do we have to pull back our egos and admit that there are stages
and stages to go and we aren't the top of it all? I can't see most
humans, much less the very religious who back intelligent design being
willing to do that.

I can't say I'm in favour of either A or B. I'll go with evolution
for $50, Bob.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

wrote in message
...

Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as
such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even
could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject
matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it.

Okay, seriously, who said anyone was "outlawing" ID?

The only thing that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones said was that the
Dover, PA school board's attempt to "insert intelligent design into the
science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and
state." Additionally, "Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the
Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their
true motive, which he said was to promote religion." Furthermore, "the
issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design
"is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a
scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to
the federal bench three years ago."

Finally, "Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept
shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and
deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

So where does "outlawing" ID show up?

The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I
don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an
absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual,
unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information
indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate
theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning
behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently
believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have
believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if
known.

Do you believe that all of these other beliefs should be taught in a science
class?

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.

"Legal intervention" only occurred when a religiously biased school board
attempted to refute science with a religious interpretation of how life came
about.

Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include
alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily
available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously,
14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically
dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals,
illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud
techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers,
and biology.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the dicussion at hand. No one has said
that ID couldn't be taught, only that it can't be taught within the context
of science, as it is not a scientific theory, but a religious
interepretation.

Would you think it logical to suggest that students in a class teaching the
religious aspects of creationism also have to study the theory of
evolution, as part of that class?

Example: The teacher say to the class, "today we will discuss the biblical
story of creation in the chapter entitled. Genesis, and tomorrow we will
discuss an alternative view of the creation of life, the theory of
evolution."

Op

R


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

wrote:

is that he _was_ ... _isn't_

Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

wrote in message
news
...Is that what I mean? Well, thankfully, you're here to explain it...

Starting from the admittedly magnanimous assumption that you have something
to say and (even more generously) that it means something, SOMEBODY should
explain it......and you are clearly incapable of doing so. Now, let me go
way out on a limb here and suggest that you think I'm wrong about this.
O.k......prove it. Seriously.

Wolfgang
emeril absinthe oprah emeril emeril latifah oprah

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
is that he _was_ ... _isn't_
Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind
would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public
school science classrooms unless they were running for office
as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost
as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity,
sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
is that he _was_ ... _isn't_
Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_,

Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what
the meaning of "is" is?


Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation
with all things Klintonian)

Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind
would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public
school science classrooms unless they were running for office
as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost
as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity,
sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

Good God, you are stupid.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in
ups.com:

From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has
said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a
theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent'"....

Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts
ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT
certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in
question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is
about......and it does a damned fine job of it.



I might be going against the grain, but scientific facts are just facts
so long as they don't cause predictions that are so wrong that they tear
down the Kuhnian paradigm. We don't "know" a thing about reality with
100% certainty, we just have a pretty good model of what's going on. We
can only test hypothesis within that model.

Aristotle thought he was right using his physical model with the five
elements air, fire, earth, water, and aether. Indeed, using the tools
available to him at the time, there weren't any huge inconsistencies in
his model that caused him to throw the whole deal out.

In some ways, to claim scientific certainty is an admission that there
are no earth-shaking technologies in our future that will help us shed
real light on the mysteries of the universe, and I find that more
depressing then comforting--I'd rather give up on scientific certainty
then abandon hope on a major natural philosophical surprise. Those
physicists trying to develope a unification theory shouldn't pack it in
just yet!

Of course, none of the above is in any way a suggestion that we should
begin teaching the paradigms of yesterday in pre-college curricula as if
they were cutting edge science, making believe they solve mysteries
which current science tells us are not mysteries.

The other caveat worth discussing in this philosophical house of cards
I'm living in is that it gives bad scientists the opportunity to claim
that the wrong conclusions they reach are just the next logical Kuhnian
Revolution-- and that we must abandon our current "good" model and adopt
their replacement, even though nobody else sees the inconsistencies in
the good model. I think there's alot of this going on in the
Intelligent Design debate (though I have trouble acknowledging it as a
debate).

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply